Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Postmaster-General when he will consider the Report of the Advertising Advisory Committee of the Independent Television Authority regarding misleading advertisements, which include substitute products; and what action he proposes to take, in consultation with the Authority, under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The Independent Television Authority tells me that its Advertising Advisory Committee has advised it that, because of the technical limitations of the medium, it is sometimes necessary to take special measures to achieve verisimilitude in the reproduction of products; and that the use of special methods of reproduction and demonstration to overcome these technical limitations is not in itself unjustifiable. It emphasises, however, that the resultant picture should be fair and reasonable and not such as to mislead viewers about the quality of the product or its effects.
The Independent Television Authority has accepted that advice. In view of the Authority's insistence that the picture should not mislead, I do not propose to issue any directions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I right in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that in many cases the picture on the screen is something entirely different from the product alleged to be advertised to the public? Is he aware that the I.T.A.'s code of principles lays it down that

No advertisement shall contain any visual presentation of the product or service advertised which, directly or by implication, misleads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 407.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with this extraordinary situation? Will he answer my Question, which asked when he will study this Report? He told us on 16th March that he personally would consider it. Has he done so, and what conclusion has he reached? Will he allow Members to see the Report?

Mr. Bevins: It is the duty of I.T.A. to comply with the recommendations of its Advertising Advisory Committee, and it is saying to me that although certain special methods of reproduction and demonstration are in themselves desirable for technical reasons, it is proposing to insist that the picture should always be fair and not such as to mislead. If I felt at any time that advertisements on I.T.V. contravened that understanding, I should naturally reconsider taking action under the Act.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not the case that when one fabricates the result it is not the real result? In that sense, is it not misleading? Will the right hon. Gentleman place this Report in the Library of the House so that Members may examine it?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that this is a question of fabricating a result. It may be justifiable, on occasion, to fabricate the means, provided that the result is an honest one. I do not think it would be right to place a copy of the Report in the Library. It was made by the Advisory Committee to the I.T.A. and not to me.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Reception, Weardale and Teesdale

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Postmaster-General what further consultations have taken place on the television reception in the Weardale and Teesdale area, County Durham, with the object of improving reception.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. tell me it will be considering what can be done to improve television reception in Weardale


and Teesdale when it plans later stages of its satellite proposals. The I.T.A. also knows that reception is difficult in some parts of this area, but it is not yet in a position to make firm plans for filling in gaps in its coverage.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer, because I received the same reply last year? Will not he give some semblance of social justice to these people? Will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to remove the annual fee, because these people are paying private enterprise in order to get some semblance of a picture? Will not the right hon. Gentleman remove this social injustice as quickly as possible?

Mr. Bevins: I cannot give the hon. Member an affirmative answer to the last part of his question. I do, however, realise the difficulties in that part of the country, and so, indeed, do the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. What is needed, both in Weardale and in Teesdale—this is the view of the B.B.C—is low-powered translators, which I am assured by the B.B.C. it has in mind for the third stage of its satellite programme.

Future

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now state the terms of reference of, and the persons appointed to, the committee to examine the future of broadcasting.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to announce the formation and terms of reference of the committee on the future of broadcasting.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry I cannot add to the Answers I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) last week.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, whilst we appreciate his difficulty in finding persons for the committee, that does not prevent him telling the House the terms of reference or constitution of the committee? Will he try to be a little more forthcoming with the House in this important matter?

Mr. Bevins: If I were to add to what I have said, it would not promote the object that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Therefore, I prefer to say no more.

Television Advisory Committee (Report)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General when he now expects to receive and publish the report of the Television Advisory Committee on lineage, colour, and the future use of available channels in Bands III, IV and V.

Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that I have today received the Report of the Television Advisory Committee and I should like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking the Chairman, Admiral Sir Charles Daniel, and his colleagues for all the work they have put into it. In view of the general interest of hon. and right hon. Members in this Report, I have already asked for it to be printed as rapidly as possible and I will send each hon. Member a copy so that they may study at leisure the highly technical matters with which it deals.

Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now decided when he will authorise the expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the money for provision of television and very high-frequency broadcasting services in the Western Isles; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: I have been considering the B.B.C.'s plans for the second stage of their satellite station scheme and I expect to be able to say something about them very shortly.

Mr. MacMillan: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing a new note of hope into the reply which we have been getting for the last few years that we could not be given any sort of starting date? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate—for example, whether it will be 1961 or 1962 —so that the B.B.C. can do what it wants to do, that is, plan ahead and order equipment?

Mr. Bevins: I hope to make a full statement on the matter later this week, when I think the hon. Member and his Scottish friends will be pleased by what I say.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Charitable Journals (Postage)

Mr. Collard: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider a reduction in the postage rates for the official journals of charitable organisations.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): Much as I sympathise with the object of these organisations, I am sorry I cannot reduce the postage rates exceptionally for their official journals.

Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of these charitable organisations, the Royal Air Forces Association, has to spend about £4,000 a year on postage in order to keep in touch with its members by means of its journal? Does not she agree that this is a very heavy burden?

Miss Pike: I appreciate the burdens upon such organisations, but we have to consider that the printed paper post is already running at a loss of about £1·8 million a year and the newspaper post at about £1·3 million. Even if I thought these postal concessions desirable, we just could not afford them.

Sub-Office, Old Catton

Mr. Collard: asked the Postmaster General if he will authorise the establishment of a sub-post office in the parish of Old Catton, near Norwich.

Miss Pike: I have considered this matter carefully, but I am sorry that I should not be justified at present in doing as my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ancient parish of Old Catton has about 2,000 inhabitants and that this number is increasing? Is she further aware that the nearest post office is a mile away and not on a bus route, that the fare to the nearest post office on a bus route is 10d. return. Will she, therefore, look at this again?

Miss Pike: The part of the parish of Old Catton concerned in this Question contains only 339 houses, with a population of 850 and only one shop. In the other part of Old Catton, to the south, there is a sub-post office. There is also a sub-post office at Catton Grove, which is three-quarters of a mile away, and there is a good bus service into Norwich, where most people have to do their shopping. I have gone into this question very carefully, but I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request.

Facilities, Congleton

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the postal service to Congleton, Cheshire, details of which have been sent to him.

Miss Pike: I am taking all possible steps to eliminate the causes of delay. In particular, parcel mails from Mount Pleasant, London, to Congleton have recently been re-routed in an effort to avoid delays in transmission by rail. I am writing to my hon. Friend about the individual cases to which he has drawn my attention.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that letters travelling four miles from Congleton to Biddulph take about 36 hours via Macclesfield and cover a distance of 30 to 40 miles? While there has been an improvement, it has taken place only since this matter was ventilated in the Congleton Chronicle when the Question was tabled. Will my hon. Friend try to improve on this service to facilitate local business?

Miss Pike: We have gone into the question thoroughly. The transfer from the sorting office to Macclesfield head office will improve the service, in addition to the improvement I have mentioned in re-routeing the mails from Mount Pleasant.

Telegrams (Prosecutions)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General how many prosecutions have been instituted during the past year


under Section 66 (b) of the Post Office Act, 1953, which prohibits the sending of false telegrams for the purpose of causing annoyance.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Does that Answer mean that the Postmaster-General has decided not to institute proceedings concerning the false telegram about which evidence was given by a G.P.O. investigator and others in the recent case of MacPherson v. the Duchess of Argyll? Is not he aware that this matter has been before the Post Office since 1957, when the complaint was originally made?

Mr. Bevins: I did not prosecute the sender of this telegram for two reasons. First, under the Act, a prosecution has to be launched within 12 months of the date of the offence, and I was not Postmaster-General in 1958. Secondly, even if I had been in my present office, I should not have known who to prosecute because the Post Office did not know who the sender of the telegram was.

Sub-Office, Penge

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the proposal to close the sub-post office at 45 High Street, Penge, S.E.20, following the opening of a new Crown Office in the centre of Penge, in view of the widespread desire of the public that this sub-post office should not close.

Miss Pike: This sub-post office is rather less than 400 yards from the site of the new Crown Office, and I am sorry I should not be justified in keeping it open.

Mr. Goodhart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the consideration she has given to this problem, but in view of the large public interest in the matter lately, will she consider postponing the closure of this sub-post office for six months to see whether there is sufficient business to justify keeping both of the offices open?

Miss Pike: My hon. Friend has discussed this matter with me fully and I appreciate his determination to leave no stone unturned. For the reasons I have already given him, however, I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request.

Offices (Sunday Opening)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General what is his policy in respect of the opening of post offices on Sunday mornings; and if he has considered the desirability of opening a post office in the borough of Leyton during such time, particularly in view of the recent Sunday morning closure of the post office in the adjacent borough of Walthamstow.

Miss Pike: Post offices are to be kept open on Sunday only where the expense involved is justified by the use people make of them for transactions which cannot be carried out elsewhere. Very few people used the Walthamstow office except to buy stamps; and, as these can be obtained from machines, it was decided to close the office last October. Telegrams can, of course, be dictated from any telephone kiosk. I feel sure that circumstances in Leyton are much the same as in Walthamstow, and that I should not be justified in opening an office there on Sunday.

Mr. Sorensen: Why did the Walthamstow post office remain open for so long before it was at last closed down? Was it because it was paying its way until that date? If not, what was the sudden reason for the decision to close the office in view of the fact that it had served the district for so long?

Miss Pike: The policy is to keep offices open where justified. This one was kept open so that we could test whether there was justification for keeping it open. The Sunday business at Walthamstow was falling away rapidly, however, and the average business was one telegram, 35 stamps, three or four registered letters, three or four savings withdrawals, and so on. In view of these figures, we decided that we must close the office.

Buildings and Property (Renovation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent the Post Office engages in renovating its buildings and property by its own employees, by arrangement with the Ministry of Works and by private contract, respectively.

Miss Pike: Electrical and heating work apart, the amount of renovation done by Post Office employees is negligible. Renovation of Post Office buildings and property is undertaken in the


main by the Ministry of Works, but some of the smaller jobs, such as work on unattended telephone exchange buildings, and repainting of letter boxes, are let directly to private contractors.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there any kind of liaison between the Ministry of Works and the Post Office in view of the fact that sometimes, apparently, the Ministry of Works does not perform its task to the satisfaction either of the Post Office or the general public?

Miss Pike: I assure the hon. Member that in general there is very close liaison between the Ministry of Works and the Post Office.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Lady inform the House how much private work was introduced into the Post Office during the tenure of her right hon. Friend's predecessor?

Miss Pike: I cannot give figures. It would be difficult to ascertain the proportion of private and Ministry of Works building work. The share of the Ministry of Works is, of course, very much the larger.

Purchases (Scotland)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of Post Office uniforms in terms of price is purchased in Scotland; and what was the relevant proportion in 1950.

Miss Pike: 8 per cent. in 1959–60 and 5 per cent. in 1950–51.

Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that, since private enterprise and the Government generally seem unwilling to induce private enterprise to come to Scotland to provide employment, she and her Department could influence expenditure in this way to take up the slack in that part of the United Kingdom?

Miss Pike: I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that an increased share to Scottish firms for the supply of uniforms is largely due to the efforts of the Post Office to stimulate tenders.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of Post Office telephone and electrical equipment, including cables, is purchased in Scotland; and how this proportion compares with similar purchases in 1950.

Mr. Bevins: About ½ per cent. in 1959–60 and 1 per cent. in 1950–51.

Mr. Lawson: Does this not show that the trend indicated by the earlier Answer has certainly not been borne out in the much more important matter of developing modern industries? Would he not use his Department's buying power to see that Scotland gets a share of this very important electrical and cable business?

Mr. Bevins: I should be delighted to if there were suppliers of this equipment in Scotland, but the fact is that Scotland has got very few indeed. I should like to make it perfectly clear that where the Post Office can help in giving contracts to Scottish firms we do so—for instance, the cable ship which is being built on the Clyde.

Research (Scotland)

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Postmaster-General which of the Post Office Research Establishments are established in Scotland; and what proportion of the cost of Post Office research is spent in Scotland.

Mr. Bevins: Post Office research is centred at Dollis Hill. There are a few small outstations but none is in Scotland.

Youths (Training)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Postmaster-General what was the number of youths in training for Post Office work in the United Kingdom; what percentage of these was being trained in Scotland; and how this percentage compares with the similar percentage for 1950.

Miss Pike: The figures were, respectively: 1,657: 5 per cent. and 10 per cent.

Mr. Gourlay: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask whether she does not feel that her Department could do much more to alleviate the gross unemployment of youth in Scotland?

Miss Pike: Over the last five years the figures of adult and juvenile labour in Scotland have remained fairly steady. Recruitment is, however, expected to increase in the next year or so.

Mr. G. Campbell: Can my hon. Friend say whether the decision to bring the Transatlantic cable into Britain via Oban


is providing or will provide any more employment in that area or in Scotland generally?

Miss Pike: Yes, I am glad to say that in this instance we shall be employing more Scottish craftsmen, but hon. Members will realise that the amount of labour which is actually employed at the terminal centre is. of course, very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Party Lines (St. Marylebone)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Postmaster-General by what date he estimates that there will no longer be a need for telephone subscribers in the St. Marylebone area to share a party line with another subscriber.

Mr. Bevins: The cable system is being steadily expanded in Marylebone and elsewhere, but I cannot say when there will be sufficient cables to make sharing unnecessary. I should like everyone to have the kind of telephone service he wants, and I am only sorry that this is not possible at present. My ability to do this depends on the capital resources available for the development of the system and the rate at which new applications are received.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory that he cannot give a definite date when shared lines will no longer be possible? Surely he knows what his programme of expansion is and the likely increase of subscribers. Will not he try to make an effort to give the information so Chat subscribers in St. Marylebone may know when they no longer need to share a party line?

Mr. Bevins: The proportion of people in my hon. Friend's constituency who have party lines is very much smaller than in the rest of the country, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am by no means complacent about this matter. I want to see the telephone system expanded, as it ought to be.

Boxmoor Exchange

Mr. Allason: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to convert the Boxmoor telephone exchange to automatic operation; and by what means the conversion can be speeded up.

Mr. Bevins: I expect the conversion to take place in 1964. A new building is required, and discussions are proceeding with the local planning authority. I do not think that I can undertake to convert the exchange before 1964, but, as I have already told my hon. Friend, I will do so if I can.

Mr. Allason: Could not my right hon. Friend take a commercial view of this matter? I thought that he had been freed from Treasury control. A very large number of firms in the new town of Hemel Hempstead are in desperate need of an efficient telephone service, which they had when they were in London. What is needed is an expansion of the facilities and equipment. Surely no private enterprise firm would go to its customers and say, "We cannot give you the service you want for a further four years".

Mr. Bevins: The shortage of junctions has been largely overcome by the provision of additional junctions. As my hon. Friend said, it is perfectly true that we are to make a more commercial approach to the Posit Office, but when he has been in this place a little longer he will realise that there are many components to government.

Subscribers (Overcharging)

Mr. W. Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the large number of cases where charges for trunk calls which have not been made are demanded from telephone subscribers; if he is satisfied that the telephone subscriber is adequately protected from over-payment under the present system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: My experience does not support the first part of the hon. Member's Question. Though errors sometimes occur, sample checks of callers' numbers show that the proportion of calls wrongly booked is very small, and when they come to notice they are carefully investigated. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will be very glad to make enquiry.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case I have in mind is my own case in connection with two telephones for which I am financially responsible? In both accounts charges were made for trunk calls which I had


never made. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the telephone subscriber who is liable to be charged for calls made by other people should be protected by his Department? Judging from his reply, it would appear that he is doing nothing about the matter. If it can happen to me twice, surely it can happen to all telephone subscribers. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Bevins: I hope that the incorrect charges to the hon. Gentleman have been waived by the Post Office. I ought to tell him, however, that we make regular checks on these calls in about 10 per cent. of the cases, and our investigations show that incorrect charges are made in about one case in 8,000. Having said that, I admit that the present system is by no means foolproof, and the more rapidly we can move over to subscriber trunk dialling, which will minimise the liability to error, the better.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very interesting experiment being conducted by his predecessor, and about which he told the House, of installing in subscribers' homes a machine automatically to register the calls so that there is an adequate check against the charges? What has happened to that?

Mr. Bevins: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. I will certainly have a look at it.

Services

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction with the British telephone service, in particular with the time it takes to obtain a directory inquiry, a trunk call and a subsequent disconnection; and if he will make a statement on his long-term plans to improve these services, with estimates of the time it will take to effect the various improvements.

Mr. Bevins: In most parts of the country the service is, I believe, very good. There are some places where, because of shortage of staff, buildings or equipment, the quality of service is not as good as I would wish. In these places we are doing what we can to bring about an improvement.
As regards the latter part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the plans described in the White Papers of November, 1957, on Telephone Policy, and March, 1960, on Post Office Capital Expenditure in 1960–61.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the British telephone service is a disgrace to a modern country, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Bevins: I certainly do not accept that very sweeping generalisation, but, on the other hand, I am perfectly willing to concede that in the Birmingham area, where there has been an immense new demand for a telephone service during the last year or two, the situation is not as good as it ought to be. As I indicated, I am doing what I can to improve it.

Mr. Lindsay: It is just as bad in London.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made in the inauguration of subscriber trunk dialling; and whether he is satisfied that his target for 1960 will be achieved.

Mr. Bevins: Three centres now have S.T.D. and two more will have it in the next few weeks. I hope that we shall generally achieve our target of 40 places by the end of 1960. Since the 1957 White Paper the long-term programme has been speeded up so that 60 per cent. of users will have S.T.D. within five years and 90 per cent. within ten years.

Mr. Mason: In view of this rapid development of S.T.D., will the right hon. Gentleman agree that as we are to have a cheaper service with greater efficiency because of subscriber trunk dialling, it is absolutely necessary at this stage to have more advertisements to try to attract more people to use the telephone?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. That is one of many matters that I am examining.

Information Service

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent the telephone information service, specially provided


in London to give details of daily events to tourists, has proved a success.

Mr. Bevins: This service, which gives a diary of events in English, French and German, has been well received. About 1,000 calls are made to it each day.

Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make this service more widely known and, in particular, consider the suggestion that a display card should be prepared to be put in London hotels so that tourists can take immediate advantage of it?

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that this service does not have the publicity which it should. I am considering that suggestion. I will see that an advertisement is put in the opening pages of the London telephone directory and, in addition, we will use other media.

Kiosks, Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General how many requests he has had for provision of public telephone kiosks in the Western Isles in the past two years; how many have been agreed; and how many have been refused.

Mr. Bevins: Twenty-four requests have been received and eight have been met. In five other places a telephone is being provided on a rental basis in an individual house.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not the Postmaster-General think that it is somewhat shabby to have to resort to the device of obtaining a community service by getting an individual to apply for it and then to get his neighbours and himself to share the rent? Would it not be much better simply to face the need for community service in these areas and to provide it?

Mr. Bevins: The Western Isles are not doing too badly. Altogether, they have about 170 telephone kiosks. I recognise that social needs come into this matter, but, at the same time, I have to bear in mind that the Post Office is losing about £3½ million a year on public telephone kiosks. Where it is possible to assist small local communities by putting a telephone in an individual house, that helps.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Fylingdales Early-Warning Station

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Air what will be the size of the three large balls which are to form part of the Fylingdales early-warning station.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): They will be 140 ft. in diameter.

Mr. Driberg: Was the right hon. Gentleman entirely serious when he seemed to think it possible to landscape such gigantic balls so that they would harmonise with their natural surroundings? Would it not be better to leave them stark and white, as an interesting example, perhaps, of functional architecture, with a certain macabre beauty of their own, and as an appropriate symbol of the general insanity in which we are involved?

Mr. Ward: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, we are, of course, taking the advice in this matter of an expert landscape consultant.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the Secretary of State deny that the erection of these three brass balls is a visible sign that we are in pawn to Uncle Sam in this part of the National Park?

Mr. Ward: I know that some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side would like to blackball the whole project, but personally I think it is a very useful one.

Education Facilities, Aden

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what progress has been made in the provision of new school accommodation for the children of Royal Air Force parents at Aden; and when he expects to be able to provide all the children with school places.
(2) in how many cases he is still unable to provide school places for the children of Royal Air Force parents at Aden; what educational provision is being made for these children; and what help has been given by his Department.

Mr. Ward: Work on the new school at Khormaksar is well advanced, and part of it is already in use. As I told


the hon. Member on 16th December, it should be completed early next year. Meanwhile my Department is paying fees for 121 children at civilian schools. No children are without school places.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions he has said recently, and as recently as the Air Estimates debate, that he is going to move very rapidly on this project? Does he recall that this very long delay has put it three or four years behind and that it is really a disgrace that 120 children still cannot be accommodated who should be accommodated by his Department? Therefore, will not he do something to urge this project on more rapidly?

Mr. Ward: On the contrary, this new school is making excellent progress. Certainly, during the Air Estimates debate I gave this date of early next year, and that is still the date. As to the delay which the hon. Gentleman has alleged to have taken place, I have explained to him several times the various factors which have complicated the schools problem in Aden. I hope Chat he will be glad to hear that we are now making good progress.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the payment of school fees does not answer the main and most serious problem, that there is an obligation to Service families sent abroad to provide places for the education of their children without swamping the limited local facilities provided by the Colonial Government for a quite different purpose?

Mr. Ward: We are doing our best to provide places for everybody. As I said, this should be by early next year. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the population of Aden has increased so rapidly that it is physically impossible to keep pace and build all the school places we need.

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman not run away from the fact— I do not want to recall the Question I asked in 1956—that this school accommodation was definitely promised by his Department for the year 1957 and that by the time that these children are accommodated it will in fact be 1961?

Mr. Ward: The plan which was originally designed to be finished in 1957

was a quite different and much smaller plan. Since then the population of Aden has increased so rapidly that we have had to alter the plan twice since then.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Shrewsbury By-pass

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of his repeated refusal to include in his programme the construction of the north-south by-pass at Shrewsbury, whether he will authorise the Shrewsbury Borough Council to proceed with a road between Monkmoor Road and Ditherington as a classified road.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Since we cannot include the whole by-pass in the programme for some time, we are now considering whether we can include a scheme for a shorter by-pass, part of which would lie between Monk-moor and Ditherington. I am at present unable to say how soon funds might be found either for this or for the less attractive proposal of building only the section between Monkmoor and Ditherington as a classified road scheme.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that at Shrewsbury, due to its peculiar geographical position, a large proportion of the traffic which approaches the town is funnelled through the town by the river, and that there is no short solution to this except by the selection of one of these two roads?

Mr. Hay: Yes, that is why we are hoping to provide the interim by-pass to which I referred.

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Transport how many applications by local authorities for permission to install pedestrian crossings have been turned down by his Department over the last five years.

Mr. Hay: About 950.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend took part in a broadcast on 30th April and said:
It is no good writing to me about parking problems and pedestrian crossings. Why should I think that I could control all these things


from the centre? It is absolute nonsense to think Whitehall can control matters needing detailed local knowledge. That is the job of the town hall."?
Did the right hon. Gentleman mislead the public of this country when he said that? Is it not true that he turned down hundreds of local authority applications for the constructing of pedestrian crossings? Will the Minister be a little more careful, when next he takes part in a broadcast, not to use such misleading language?

Mr. Hay: To turn down 950 applications over five years is an annual rate of about 200 a year.

Mr. Manuel: Too many.

Mr. Hay: In the period no fewer than 1,149 new crossings were approved.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend said that it was no use writing to him about the lack of pedestrian crossings when it is the right hon. Gentleman who has the power to say yes or no?

Mr. Hay: Simply because I was asked in the original Question to say how many pedestrian crossing applications had been turned down. If the hon. Member wants to ask me what my right hon. Friend said, he is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Benn: Is it not clear from the figures given that the Ministry of Transport turned down only slightly fewer than the number it approved? Would it not be very wrong for the Minister of Transport to lay the blame on local authorities for failure in their share of the responsibility for road safety as was implied in the Minister's broadcast?

Mr. Hay: I do not accept that what my right hon. Friend said bore that implication at all. We have just over 14,365 pedestrian crossings and we have reduced the number to this figure since 1950 when it was 32,684. The whole problem in the past has been that if we have too many crossings they are not observed by motorists and do not provide adequate safety measures.

Road Schemes

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Transport how many schemes for constructing and improving roads, sub-

mitted to him by local authorities, have been refused by his Department during the last five years.

Mr. Hay: Highway authorities apply to us for grants towards the cost of major improvement schemes on classified roads. The large number of such schemes in relation to the funds at our disposal makes a priority system necessary whereby schemes are selected for grant on the basis of need and urgency. This means that schemes must often be deferred, but outright refusal is rare. Systematic records of any such refusal are not kept.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the broadcast to which I have already referred his right hon. Friend said:
The initiative for constructing, improving and maintaining over 95 per cent. of our roads is the responsibility of local authorities …
Is he aware that the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am anxious and willing to do my part,
and that, speaking to his radio audience, he added:
You must elect local authorities eager to do theirs."?
It is obvious that the councils have been eager to show initiative and that it is the deadly hand of the Ministry that is stopping them getting on with the job.

Mr. Hay: If only the party opposite when it had responsibility for these matters had got on with the job we would not have so many schemes that we cannot do now.

Mr. Mellish: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in trying to defend himself and the Minister he must take into account the fact that local authorities resent very much the implication that the right hon. Gentleman created that the local authorities have been responsible for holding up these plans?

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that local authorities are submitting schemes for constructing and improving roads in accordance with the national road planning requirements of the areas over which they have control; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Yes, Sir. The schemes which I invite local highway authorities to submit for grants are those which I


have agreed with them individually as being most important either for the national economy or for road safety.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the Minister aware that his Answer contrasts very markedly with his statement in the broadcast to which reference has already been made? Is he aware that I have had representations from local councillors in my area who resent the implied criticisms of local authorities, other than those manned by Conservative politicians? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has consistently turned down schemes which my local authorities have submitted to him, and will he now apologise for this unseemly conduct?

Mr. Manuel: What, again?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has been disappointed with his local authorities and the recent results. The Ministry of Transport rarely turns down. It has a system of priorities, but the initial choice must rest with the highway authorities themselves, since they have statutory responsibility for improving the classified roads.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty is that there is no public national plan for road building in this country? Is he aware that civil engineering contractors complained only a few days ago that they have as many road-building machines idle as they have in use? Is he aware that what is required is the publication of a White Paper by the Government setting out their plans for road building over the next five years?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member has a later Question on that subject and had better wait until we reach it. If the hon. Member compares what is being done now in building and improving roads with what was done by his party, I think he will find an improvement.

Accidents

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the Road Research Laboratory's detailed report on Christmas road accidents; if, when he receives it, he will publish it as a White Paper; and if he will call for similar reports to cover the Easter period and to cover a normal week.

Mr. Marples: I expect to receive the full report by the Road Research Laboratory on road fatalities over the Christmas period in about four weeks' time; some preliminary information may be available before the end of this month. The publication of the report and the desirability of calling for further detailed inquiries of this kind are questions to be decided when I have received and read the report itself.

Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we have very little accurate information about the causes of road accidents? Would it not be possible to devise some means whereby we can obtain and see a detailed report, at any rate about fatal accidents, so that we can decide more easily what action is necessary to prevent them?

Mr. Marples: That is precisely why I asked the Road Research Laboratory to undertake this rather detailed investigation. It is an exceptional investigation by a specially qualified staff and they are taking a great deal of time and trouble. I think the next move ought to await their report, and we shall then see what we can do.

Mr. G. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a sufficiently large staff has been employed on this inquiry? It seems to have taken a considerable time.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. There are nine full-time people on the job. They are not only going into coroners' reports but visiting the sites of accidents. This is the most detailed investigation that has ever been undertaken.

Mr. Benn: If the preliminary figures are available, as the Minister expects, by the end of this month, will he undertake to make them available to the House, even if in duplicated form, so that we may have them before us when we debate the Order which is to bring into force a 50 m.p.h. limit for Whitsun?

Mr. Marples: The two things are quite unrelated. I think I take the House with me when I say that it is desirable for me to wait until I receive that detailed report, which is not only about the figures but about reasons for the accidents.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what percentage


of accidents on the road in the last twelve months have not involved a private car.

Mr. Hay: I regret that the information asked for is not available for 1959. In January and February, 1960, about 46 per cent. of all accidents did not involve private cars.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does this mean that a new set of statistics is now being obtained for the right hon. Gentleman which was not previously obtained? Can the hon. Gentleman say what relation the 46 per cent. not involving private cars bears to the total number of vehicles on the roads? Does it show that private cars are concerned in more accidents or fewer accidents than the other categories?

Mr. Hay: I hesitate to try to answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question without notice. If he will put down a Question I will give him the answer. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the position is that as from the beginning of this year we are able to get statistics about private car and other types of vehicle accidents.

Road Safety

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that local authorities are taking all necessary steps to assist him in his campaign for safer roads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: As I said in this House last month, the Government can never be satisfied that enough is being done for road safety. I greatly value the co-operation which I receive from local authorities, who are doing excellent work in their own right. This does not mean that the effort of every local authority is as extensive, strong and effective as it could be. I urge all councils to review the position in their areas to ensure that everything possible is done which will help to cut down road accidents.

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the Minister has emphasised that he is not quite satisfied, but is he aware that I have had representations made to me about the broadcast he made and his criticism of local authorities in the matter of road safety campaigns? Is it not about time that the Minister of

Transport acted in a responsible manner befitting a Minister of the Crown? If he cannot do that, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to resign?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Car Parking (Multi-Storey Garages)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Minister of Transport what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to construct automatic multi-storey garages as a means of solving town centre parking problems.

Mr. Marples: I am always ready to view sympathetically applications by local authorities for loan sanction and compulsory purchase orders for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities. These may include automatic multi-storey garages where appropriate.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the pioneering work done in this matter, without the Ministry's encouragement, by Woolwich Borough Council, a much more enterprising body than the Ministry of Transport? Will he circularise other local authorities with the results of the Woolwich experiment?

Mr. Marples: I agree that Woolwich is to be commended on this multi-storey garage, but it is untrue to say that the Ministry has been unhelpful. We have tried to help Woolwich in this respect, and we will try to help all local authorities which wish to provide multi-storey parking, because I think that it is extremely important in the stream of traffic today.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is not much point in asking local authorities to erect multi-storey garages or any other garages unless adequate notices are provided so that motorists know where the garages are? Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to emphasise to local authorities the importance of providing adequate directions for motorists to enable them to park their cars in garages?

Mr. Marples: I will bear that in mind, and I am sure that Woolwich will, too.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while on the one hand


he says that he wants to encourage local authorities to build multi-storey garages, in a Standing Committee he has refused to allow local authorities which are building garages to sell oil and petrol? How can he justify that?

Mr. Marples: Local authorities cannot trade in oil and petrol, but they can provide the facilities. There is no reason why a local authority which wants to provide off-street car parking should be given entitlement to do a whole heap of other things as well.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Garages for the rich; no houses for the poor.

East Anglia-Midlands Communications

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving communications by road from East Angilia to the Midlands, having regard to their inadequacy at the present time, and in view of the growing importance of the ports in that area due to the creation of the European Free Trade Association and the need to attract more industry.

Mr. Hay: We have to consider the claims of these roads in relation to needs elsewhere in the country. I am afraid that comprehensive improvement cannot be undertaken at present, but a scheme for a new bridge at St. Neots estimated to cost £690,000 is being prepared. In addition a number of smaller improvements to the total value of about £500,000 are under construction or are to start shortly.

Mr. Prior: Is my hon. Friend aware that people living in East Anglia feel that they are not getting a fair share of the money which is being spent on road improvements, that our rail communications are shocking and that our unemployment position leaves much to be desired? Will he try to do something to help us so that more employment can be brought into the area?

Mr. Hay: It is a false conception to imagine that individual areas of the country should obtain a fair share of the money available for road improvements. We have, as I said in answer to an earlier Question, had to establish a system of priorities based upon traffic needs and not upon geographical location. We have no doubt at all that the roads of East

Anglia are the least heavily trafficked of any in the country, and, therefore, their priority is, I am afraid, at the moment correspondingly less; but we will do what we can as and when we can.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he compares the London—Colchester—.North-East Essex road with the roads to the South Coast, there is something to be said for giving priority to the area so that we can make proper use of the port facilities of Harwich?

Mr. Hay: We have all these considerations in mind but have to balance the demands of one road against the demands of many other roads throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Pontoon Docks, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in conjunction with Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners, to remedy the defects in the pontoon docks at Aberdeen Harbour.

Mr. Hay: The Harbour Commissioners agreed at a meeting with us on 5th November, 1959, to bring all the local interests together to study the problem of the pontoon docks. This they have done and a report is now being prepared.

Mr. Hughes: A working party has been engaged on this problem for several months past. Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking, in conjunction with other Ministries, to provide the finance necessary for the job they are trying to undertake?

Mr. Hay: I think it better to await the report I have referred to in my original Answer. The working party has been at work for some time, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but we should like to be able to carry local interests with us in all this, and I think it better to wait for the report before we decide what to do.

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to have a nuclear-powered merchant ship at sea at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Marples: I have invited tenders from five firms for two types of nuclear reactor suitable for installation in a tanker of 65,000 tons deadweight. The closing date for the receipt of tenders is 29th July. The decision whether to build a tanker, and which type of reactor it should have, will be made in the light of what the tenders disclose and of progress with other types of reactor which show promise of application to shipping.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this country will be able to put such a nuclear-powered vessel to sea as soon as four or five of our competitors?

Mr. Marples: I think that the Americans will be the first in the field because they are already half-way in the construction of a nuclear ship. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They started before anybody else and I think they will finish before anybody else. I am bound to say that, so far as we are concerned, the first thing to do is to invite these tenders so that there shall not be any delay on that account in the building of a ship if that is considered necessary.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate on behalf of the Government building a ship at Government expense? Is that what he is saying, that the tenders are out now and he is waiting for them to come in and he can then estimate the cost? Does he intend that the Government will build the ship, or is it contemplated that it will be built by private shipowners or shipbuilders, and if so, has he any idea where they will get the money to build the ship?

Mr. Marples: Those considerations will come later. The first thing to find out is the result of the tender which has now been put out for the nuclear reactor for which we are asking. When we have that we can take the matter a stage further. Until that stage is reached it is very difficult indeed to answer a series of hypothetical questions.

Mr. P. Williams: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things in this matter is that it should be a commercial venture and, therefore, a successful one?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree, because the ultimate objective is to build a nuclear-powered ship which is economically competitive with a conventional one. Anything else which is non-competitive is likely not to survive.

Mr. Monslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we are to have a nuclear-powered merchant ship guaranteed at the expense of the State and then to be handed over to highly profitable private industry?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman really not made up his mind about this? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not carry this operation through to the stage when it becomes profitable and then hand it over to private enterprise to build and operate the ship?

Mr. Marples: I think I have made it quite clear that it ought to be a profitable enterprise and an economic ship. The first stage in the process is to find out what sort of nuclear reactor is suitable and how much it will cost. That surely is the logical process.

Sir G. Nicholson: I may be making a mistake, in which case I apologise, but is the House to understand that my right hon. Friend is undertaking or contemplating an expenditure which has not yet appeared in any Estimate? What is his authority for doing this?

Mr. Marples: I am not contemplating any expenditure at all. All that has happened is that we have invited tenders from five firms for two types of nuclear reactor. We have given the specification and they will give the prices, and then we shall make a decision.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is this not a very puzzling situation? The Minister has invited tenders, but he has not told us in the least what he might do when the tenders are received. What is the situation? Are we to suppose that private shipbuilding firms may put in tenders and then the Government may say, "We are not going to do anything about this but just leave it as it is"? The right hon. Gentleman must give us an idea of what is in his mind. Are the Government to build the ship? Are the Government going to invite private shipping companies to tender, or what?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening, but if he had been present during the debate on 21st March, when the subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemoutlh (Dame Irene Ward), he would have known that all these points were dealt with.

Dame Irene Ward: The Leader of the Opposition is out of date.

Mr. Marples: Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat what was said on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
We shall be able to get closer estimates of costs than are available at the moment and find out a lot more than we know already about various technical problems. When we have received the tenders and have assessed them —and I must warn my hon. Friend that this will take a little time—we shall then be in a much better position than we are now to decide whether a ship should be built, and if so, which type of reactor it should have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 189.]
This is the normal method of trying to make a sensible approach to a very difficult technical problem.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Minister has not explained anything at all. Perhaps I may repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said just now.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) is out of date, too.

Mr. Gaitskell: On what authority is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that this Government expenditure should take place, and how does he expect these firms to put in tenders when they have not the slightest idea what will happen when the tenders are put in?

Mr. Marples: The fact of the matter is that they axe putting in the tenders. The fact of the matter is that the Government have not committed themselves to any expenditure and will not commit themselves to any expenditure on a ship until they receive technical information.

Dame Irene Ward: Was not the whole idea behind the original Galbraith Committee, which has been transferred to my right hon. Friend, to ascertain the possibilities of a commercial venture, and ought not my right hon. Friend to be very grateful for the debate which I raised? Why does he not tell the Opposition off?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree that the best thing is to make one's inquiries first and one's decision second, which is something the party opposite does not understand. There is no point in my giving the Opposition an explanation if they are determined not to understand.

Mr. Steele: Can the Minister explain why it is that, although, when the Galbraith Committee was considering this matter, its function was to advise the Government about which type of reactor would be suitable, he now appears to be asking for two different types of reactor? Have the Government not made up their mind about which type of reactor is to be used? Does he recall that his hon. Friend who was then Civil Lord of the Admiralty indicated in the House that it was the Government's intention to build the ship and actually gave us a date when it was to be in the water?

Mr. Marples: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate on 21st March when all this was explained. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was there."] The hon. Gentleman should have been there; it was so interesting.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unless my ears deceived me, you did call me for Question No. 43.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right, I think, as to the first part of his name; I am not sure about the second part. The position was that I had not at that moment seen the Leader of the Opposition rising, and he, of necessity, owing to the convention that he does not put down Questions, is allowed to intervene. I regret that I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his Question now.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

River Craft (Repairs)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that all repairs and lengthening work on its river craft shall be done in its own workshops and shipyards.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I understand that it is the normal practice of the


British Transport Commission to undertake this sort of work in its own workshops.

Mr. Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the British Transport Commission to keep a close watch on this, as it is alleged in the Goole area that work of this kind is being given out to contractors who are doing it on overtime while there are threats of redundancy to B.T.C people in its own workshops?

Mr. Marples: British Waterways gave some contracts to outside contractors when their own workshops were full. I will see that they get the gist of the hon. Member's Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, I wish to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on Friday at 11 a.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us this information. Is it at all possible for the Prime Minister to come back from Paris a few hours earlier—I understand that he is coming back on Thursday, in any event—so that we could have a statement on Thursday afternoon? Two days is rather a long time to wait before the House of Commons has any statement on the very important events of recent days and an opportunity of putting points to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Butler: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. The difficulty is that he has been invited to have lunch with President de Gaulle on Thursday. He did ask me whether I thought that it would be permissible for him to accept that invitation and come back after lunch, which means that it would really be too late for him to make a statement on Thursday. I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. It would, however, be much more convenient for my right hon. Friend to make his statement on Friday. I do not think that he will return until rather late on Thursday evening.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not want to press this and I certainly would not, of course.

wish to prevent the Prime Minister having lunch with General de Gaulle, but if it were possible for him to come back later on Thursday and, perhaps, intervene in the course of the debate, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, for our part, we should be very happy to accommodate him.

Mr. Butler: I think that the right thing to do on an occasion like this, when the Leader of the Opposition expresses a certain sentiment, is to convey it to my right hon. Friend; but I must say that I think it will suit him better to come back here rather late on Thursday and have a chance to collect his thoughts, and make a statement on Friday morning. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless. I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments to him. If I do not make any further statement, I hope it will be taken that my right hon. Friend's statement will be made on Friday.

Mr. Smithers: Will my right hon Friend bear in mind that some of us who think that Anglo-French relations are of great importance would regret it if, out of deference to this House, my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Manuel: Where is his first duty?

Mr. Smithers: —were to forgo a final discussion with General de Gaulle?

Mr. Butler: These things are very difficult to balance. Most of us who are servants of the House are always apt to put our love for this House before anything else. At the same time, I think that my right hon. Friend would find it convenient to accept the invitation from President de Gaulle before he decides upon any other course.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the fact that the last debate on foreign affairs was limited in scope, and that no debate can arise on the Prime Minister's statement on Friday morning, will it be possible to consider, for the announcement of business tomorrow, the possibility of a short debate on the results of the Summit Conference?

Mr. Butler: This certainly should be a matter of discussion not only through the usual channels, but with any hon. Members interested, because of the obvious gravity of the situation we face

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman responds to the suggestion made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), will he bear in mind that, if there is to be a debate on this vital issue, it ought not to be a short debate?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is a channel of his own, as I have already conceded, and I should certainly wish to pay deference to his observation. Once we did get started on a debate, it would, naturally, be of such an important character that it could not be of very short duration.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHB in the Chair]

3.36 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 17, Schedule .3 Clauses 18 to 36, Schedule 4, Clauses 37 to 58, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 59 to 73. new Clauses. Schedule 7, new Schedules.
The object of the Motion is to enable the Committee to discuss the Schedules immediately after the Clauses to which it refers. That is a procedure which I think the Committee has found convenient in our deliberations during the past two years, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we followed the same procedure again.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sure that it is for the convenience of the Committee that the Motion should be passed. It is a new procedure to put down the Motion on the Notice Paper at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. During the last year or two we have had to make representations to the Chancellor at a very late hour to have the Schedules brought forward into their proper place, and it is far better that we should know where we are and that the Notice Paper should hereafter be printed in accordance with the terms of the Motion.
Proceeding in this way may help to accelerate our consideration of the Bill, which, I am sure, will be in accordance with the wishes of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. This is, I think, the dullest Finance Bill we have ever seen and all of us want to see it go through with as much speed as is compatible with a thorough investigation of the points raised.
The Chancellor will have noticed from this morning's Notice Paper that to the Clauses and Schedules 123 Amendments have been tabled, 11 of them from himself, 38 from my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and


74 from hon. Members opposite other than Government representatives. In the circumstances, while we intend to co-operate to the full in getting the Bill through in the most satisfactory manner possible, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not waste his time discussing with us the idea of a timetable. I think that his discussions should be with those behind him.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chairman: I should inform the Committee that I have put in the "No" Lobby a list of the provisional selection of Amendments up to the end of Part II of the Bill.

Clause 1.—(WINES.)

Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to sherry.
The purpose of the Amendment is simply to exclude sherry from the 12s. reduction of duty which the Chancellor has introduced for reinforced wines. It has been suggested to me that there may be some difficulty in defining sherry. I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and he told me that sherry is, perhaps, like an elephant; it is not easy to define, but everybody knows what it is. I should be content if sherry were regarded as a wine which was not a light wine, which was less than 42 degrees proof and which was imported from South Africa or from Spain.
The Chancellor said that the principal purpose of the Finance Bill was to introduce a moderate amount of restraint on consumption and it is, therefore, rather puzzling that he should introduce this considerable easement for the drinkers of reinforced wine. We understood from him that the cost of the provisions in Clause 1 would be about £4 million in a year. In a Budget meant to restrain consumption, it is anomalous to hand out £4 million which will be spent entirely in consumption. If the Chancellor has £4 million to dispose of, it could be disposed of more usefully. We have several new Clauses designed to assist widows, disabled persons, blind persons and others who are in difficulties and we

feel that that £4 million could be dispersed much more usefully. There seems to be a case for easing the lot of the indigent rather than the bibulous.
It will be recognised that the consumption of alcohol is not of itself an activity which particularly requires encouragement. Alcohol obviously has considerable social evils, on which I shall not now dilate, although some of my hon. Friends would undoubtedly be happy to do so. We know that alcohol is increasingly becoming a suspicious factor in the ever-increasing toll on the roads. Alcohol is perhaps not the most desirable subject for a concession in the Finance Bill.
The curious thing is that in the last two Finance Bills there have already been substantial concessions for alcohol. In the last Finance Bill there was a concession to beer drinkers. The Chancellor then regarded beer as a matter of specific gravity. A year before, there was a substantial concession to drinkers of reinforced wines. Consumers of reinforced wines have been treated somewhat generously for two years running and it seems to some of us a matter of dubiety that they should again receive this favourable treatment.
It must be borne in mind that this is in the nature of a tariff reduction. Normally, tariff reductions are a matter of very close and even fierce negotiation between the countries concerned. We all recollect the prolonged negotiations which took place over the proposed European Free Trade Area. We all know that in normal circumstances whenever there is a tariff reduction, some sort of reciprocal concession is expected from the other country concerned. It is very uncommon in fiscal policy for a tariff concession to be made in favour of another country without any concession of any kind in return.
3.45 p.m.
I have spoken against the idea of further reducing the duty on reinforced wine, but in his Budget statement and subsequently on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the Chancellor pointed out that Portugal was a somewhat exceptional case. He said that Portugal had joined with us in the European Free Trade Association and, therefore, joined with us in various tariff reductions and mutual concessions.
Under the terms of the Stockholm Treaty, wine is an agricultural product and, therefore, would not rank automatically for the same tariff concessions as other commodities. The Portuguese, therefore, have a reasonable case when they point out the rather high duties on our imports of port from their country, and port forms one of their principal exports to the United Kingdom.
There is already a favourable balance to ourselves in the trade between Portugal and the United Kingdom. In 1947, we imported £16 million worth of goods from Portugal and exported to her £22·3 million. The corresponding figures for 1958 were £14·3 million and £22·1 million and, for 1959, £14·8 million and £20·3 million. There is no doubt that we have a very favourable trade balance with Portugal and that the Portuguese have some reasonable ground for complaining if we decrease their exports of port by a comparatively high duty. Further, there is the fact that a substantial amount of British capital— about £12 million—is invested in Portugal.
Another aspect of the matter which may receive sympathetic attention is that port is a drink 90 per cent. of which is consumed in public houses, or obtained from off-licences, or wine merchants, by people of lower income groups and, therefore, people deserving some reduction in the duty concerned. I think that the Chancellor has made out a case for reducing the duty on port and on madeira, which comes from a Portuguese colony and to which exactly the same considerations apply
Other reinforced wines received a substantial reduction in 1958, but the same arguments do not apply to reducing the duty on wines like sherry, malaga and marsala. Sherry is easily the most dominant of those reinforced wines, other than port, and comes principally from Spain and from South Africa. A certain amount of sherry is imported from Australia, but the amount is small compared with the overwhelming dominance of South Africa and Spain in the sherry market.
It is not clear to my why Spain should have this special tariff concession. There is no question of Spain joining us in the European Free Trade Association and, so far as we know, there is no indica-

tion that Spain intends to give us any reciprocal trade concessions. Our balance of trade with Spain is very unfavourable. In 1957, we imported £36·6 million worth of goods from Spain and exported only £26 million. In 1958, the corresponding figures were £366 million and £241 million and, in 1959, they were £36 million and £20·3 million.
It would seem that we have already a very unfavourable trade balance with Spain. I think that the Chancellor, if he is to introduce what is substantially a large tariff concession in favour of Spain, ought to be able to show us a definite concession in our favour to compensate for it.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Is my hon. Friend overlooking the fact that Spain, South Africa and Portugal at least have this one thing in common which may endear them to hon. Members opposite—that all of them are Fascist countries?

Mr. Cronin: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of this important consideration. Spain is, of course, a country which even the most moderate person would describe as having a Fascist, or almost Fascist, Government. It certainly cannot be a country which is particularly deserving of the sympathy of this country to the extent that we should give Spain completely unrequited tariff concessions.
My hon. Friend will probably agree with me that we cannot be satisfied with the labour conditions under which sherry is manufactured in Spain. We know that trade unionism is severely suppressed in Spain. I agree that the same argument applies to Portugal, but I think that the Chancellor has made out a case, based on reciprocal treaty obligations in the European Free Trade Association, which to some extent clouds our minds to the political aspects of Portugal.
South Africa is already receiving the very substantial Commonwealth preference concessions. Again, I think that the Chancellor will probably tell us that no reciprocal concession has been negotiated with South Africa in return for these very substantial concessions. I think that all of us on both sides of the Committee feel considerable disapproval of the general racial policies pursued by the South African Government.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not referred the Committee to the trade balance between this country and South Africa.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that the hon. Member raised that point, because it is only fair to admit that the trade balance between ourselves and South Africa is substantially in our favour and that, of course. Is an argument in favour of giving South Africa some concession. I think, however, that that argument is overbalanced by other considerations.
An important consideration is that we cannot feel approval of the South African Government, and what we are doing now is an extremely public act which will be noted all over the world. A substantial concession like this to the Government of South Africa must be regarded throughout the world as an act of approval of the Government of South Africa. I do not think that that is something which the Committee should be in a hurry to accept with equanimity.
Another very important aspect of this matter is the labour conditions under which sherry is manufactured in South Africa. Hon. Members may know that about 1¼ million Africans are convicted every year in South Africa for comparatively trivial offences and given prison sentences. About 500,000 are convicted of what would appear to us to be very trivial offences against the pass laws, for not having the documents which they are obliged to carry, or not having properly stamped documents, or being without documents.
I should like hon. Members to consider what happens to those convicted South Africans. They are for the most part sent to farms and to the establishments of the wine growers. They receive no pay, so for all practical purposes they are used as slave labour. It is a very serious matter if we are to hand out a very large tariff concession for a commodity which is manufactured to a substantial extent by slave labour. That is something which the Committee should consider very seriously.
I have run briefly over the arguments which, I believe, are in favour of withholding this concession from reinforced wines imported from South Africa and Spain. There are, of course, the opposite arguments of which, no doubt, we

shall hear. We on this side of the Committee feel that a satisfactory case has not been made out for giving this special concession to Spain and South Africa, and that unless we have a really satisfactory explanation from the Chancellor we shall have to vote against the Clause.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who, some years ago, took up on the Adjournment and at other times the case of the import duty on port, I welcome very warmly the concession that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has granted on this occasion. Coupled with his former concession, it amounts to a real alleviation of the difficulties of the Portuguese wine community.
While I am not attempting to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in his investigations of the varying degrees of boycott which he wishes to impose on forms of government of which he does not approve, I find it a little difficult to understand how he proposes to distinguish between what may style itself port and what may style itself sherry.
One of the curious chemical compositions which has perhaps brought this matter before the Committee is the importation of strong table wines which have been doctored by strong fortified wines to make a weak fortified wine, which is neither port nor sherry, but which is sold as sherry or port, and for which about half the duty is paid compared with that which used to be paid for the genuine article. I understand from my right hon. Friend that in time past the only criterion on which the Customs and Excise operated was the gravity or alcoholic content of the wine, and I have not heard from the hon. Member for Loughborough how he proposes to differentiate between the different Governments which he dislikes on the ground of chemical compositions.

Mr. Cronin: I appreciate the highly scientific attitude adopted by the hon. Member about this. First, the wines to which he refers, and which are made here are sweets and are dealt with under a different subsection. The other thing is that I have suggested that the definition should be that of the country of origin, which is simply Spain and South Africa, so reinforced wines from Spain and South Africa are sherry for all practical purposes.

Dr. Bennett: Many other wines are imported from various parts of the world, and they are certainly not Iberian, to which this particular attack does not apply. In the absence of any constructive contribution from the hon. Gentleman about how to distinguish between these various wines, we should content ourselves with thanking my right hon. Friend for the concessions he has introduced and accept them with all gratitude.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I did not like the deep political overtones of the speech made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), which imported all sorts of alien subjects into a simple subject like sherry. If we are to arrange our Budgets and tariffs according to whether we like or dislike a country we shall have such a variegated pattern of tariffs that we shall not be able to carry on trade with any country of the world.
It seems to me that the Clause is right as it is. Since the war, sherry has got out of line with the ordinary foreign light wines, in terms of duty. Since the days before the war the duty on sherry has risen a great deal—until the last Budget it had risen by 375 per cent., whereas the duty on light wines has risen to a much smaller extent. Further, when one goes into a public house one cannot help feeling that sherry has lost its place as a drink among other drinks, and is being put into an unfair relationship with bubbly drinks, and so on.
Before the war a man would take his wife into a public house and offer her a glass of sherry, but he is not able to do so to the same extent today because it has become so expensive.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What about port and lemon?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The same argument applies to port and lemon.

Mr. Cronin: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) will concede that, in spite of the duty upon it, the consumption of sherry has steadily increased since the war, and is now greater than it was in 1938 and 1939.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Consumption has not risen all that much. I have been looking at the figures, and it is surprising how little it has risen since the war.
Last year's reduction of 2s. per bottle in the duty on sherry was not sufficient to make much difference to the price of a glass in a public house, but my right hon. Friend's concession this year will be a help in that direction.
We must also remember that many of the companies which import sherry are British companies, worthy of support. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will reject the Amendment, which I consider to be of a highly contentious and political nature, and stick to the wording of the Clause.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made it clear, both in his speech and his intervention, that what he meant by sherry was any strong wine which came from South Africa or Spain. It is quite enough to dispose of his Amendment simply to point out that it contains no definition by which we can distinguish sherry— which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) has pointed out, has become almost a brand name now—from other wines of high specific gravity, such as those defined as "sweets" in the Act that we are amending. I say that that is enough to dispose of the Amendment because, if we cannot define something which we want to take out, the Amendment becomes meaningless.
If the hon. Member is saying that port-type wines from South Africa should not enjoy the exemption from duty simply because they come from South Africa, he is merely relying upon rabid political prejudice. It astonishes me that some hon. Members opposite put forward this kind of argument when, at the same time, they continually try to advocate the extension of East-West trade. One wonders whether they approve of the internal policies of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, in whose trade they invite us to participate ever more freely.
I would ask the hon. Member whether his argument does not come to this: the defects of internal government do not matter to hon. Members opposite if the Government happens to be of the Left, but if it does not it is a great scandal, and trade and tariff discrimination ought to be urged against it in this House on every possible occasion.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will treat that argument with the contempt it deserves.

Sir L. Plummer: I hope that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will treat the arguments of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) with the contempt that they deserve. Hon. Members on this side have always argued that there should be as much free trade as possible throughout the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes—throughout the world. Many of my hon. Friends have been in the forefront in protesting against the kind of Governments that exist in various countries with whom we do not agree. We have protested over and over again. We have been much more critical of countries behind the Iron Curtain than hon. Members opposite have been of Fascist countries in Europe, or countries such as South Africa.
I do not believe that the issue here is that sherry is so expensive that the drinking of it has been stopped by people. We had to drink South African sherry during the war, but we gave it up gladly when Spanish sherry became available again. Now nobody in his senses would want to drink South African sherry, except to douse its taste with gin. It is not a drink that anybody likes; it was forced upon us because of the exigencies of war.
I would not have thought that the drinking habits of our people were altering. What may happen is that a moderate reduction in the price of wines and sherry will accelerate its consumption—but only temporarily. The brewers believe that this is a temporary thing, because one of our biggest firms has decided to spend £125,000 on an advertising campaign in favour of lager, simply because it believes that our people will revert to beer drinking again, as opposed to wine drinking, especially in our public houses.
Therefore, I do not believe that the reduction in duty will make an enormous difference. Nevertheless, it is right for those of us who believe that an injustice has been created in another country to attack that country, and to make the sort of speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made.

Mr. Robert Cooke: As the Member for Bristol whose constituency is undermined by cellars filled with sherry of one kind or another, I feel that I must say something.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would it not be right to put it on the record that the hon. Member is a Member for Bristol and not the Member for Bristol?

Mr. Cooke: I am the only Member in Bristol whose constituency is undermined by cellars full of sherry.
I feel flattered that it should be this subject which is being discussed at the beginning of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I intervene only because certain hon. Members opposite have made some extremely offensive remarks about my constituency. It so happens that most of the great firms from Bristol are located solely in that city, although, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I should point out that one of the most distinguished of those firms also has a branch in Kidderminster. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will fly to my support.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend does not need it at present.

Mr. Cooke: My constituents, upon whose good will I depend in so many ways, greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's concession. I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should be so complaining about the fact that sherry has been given the same concession as port. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we in Bristol, who depend so much on this trade for our well-being and for the employment of so many of our citizens, would never allow any political considerations to stop us indulging in this trade, in which we have been engaged for about 200 years. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment with all the force at his command.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I hope that the Committee will listen for a few moment to someone who happens to be a wine merchant. As I see it, this action of the Chancellor has no political significance; it is a purely fiscal and trading measure. We cannot distinguish between different types of fortified wine —and here I would point out that the


proper term is "fortified", and not "reinforced"; it is wine, not concrete.
One cannot distinguish between different types of fortified wines. What we are debating today, or should be debating, is whether it would be fair to discriminate against any one branch of the wine trade when those two branches of the wine trade, port and sherry, have always been treated the same.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was right to reduce the duty on port. Perhaps he had good international reasons for doing so, but, having reached that conclusion, it follows as night follows day that all fortified wines must receive the same concessions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would be most unfair to the trade suddenly to put the trade into three categories and prejudice one type of trade for political and commercial reasons.
I am not a great sherry drinker, but the strictures which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) made on South African sherry are unfair. I prefer Spanish sherry, but South African sherry can be very good. I hope that my right hon. Friend will justify the Clause on the right grounds, and not on political grounds.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The Amendment deals with the very narrow point whether, within the ambit of the reduction of the duty on heavy wines, sherry should be excluded. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and avoid talking in what he called political overtones, because, whatever may be the merits of the case, I hope that I shall be able to convince the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that it would be impracticable to accept the Amendment.
I recognise that it is a matter of opinion whether all heavy wines should be included within this duty reduction, but if one is considering the question of desirability alone I think that there is much force in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). Practicability is another matter, and I hope I shall be able to convince the Committee that it would be impossible to accede to

the request of the hon. Member for Loughborough.
I said that it would be undesirable to have a different rate of duty for sherry compared with other heavy wines, and the reason is that to do that would bring the wine duties out of alignment. If it ware necessary I would deploy this argument further on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but one of the reasons which has prompted my right hon. Friend to deal with this matter is that it is recognised—I think by the trade in general and by people outside the trade who have studied this matter —that it is highly desirable that the structure of the wine duties should be reformed, although my right hon. Friend made it clear in his Budget speech that, so far as timing was concerned, he would not have chosen to put this proposal forward this year if it had not been for our relations with the European Free Trade Association.
Apart from practicability, there is one other aspect which the Committee must recognise. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean introducing into the wine duties sub-divisions based on the types of wine, and I should have thought that if we did that it would lead to requests for special rates for other wines.
The hon. Member for Loughborough said that he thought that the Chancellor had made out a good case for some relief in respect of port, but he wished to exclude sherry, and he referred in particular to South African and Spanish sherry. The fact is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said, if we were to provide relief for port it follows that we must provide relief for all fortified wines, or, as they are called, all heavy wines. The reason is simple. There is no definition of "sherry" which is known to the law. That being the case, naturally one considers whether, to try to help the hon. Gentleman it would be possible to define sherry.
4.15 p.m.
It is impossible to evolve a satisfactory definition. Obviously, one could not simply refer to the name "sherry", because the name could quite easily be changed, and I have no doubt that if sherry were to pay a higher duty than


other heavy wines some of those who produce sherry would in future produce it under a different name.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is not sherry rather like an elephant—easy to recognise and difficult to define? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all the goods enumerated in the Customs and Excise Blue Book are capable of definition otherwise than by their names?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that in fiscal matters one must be extremely careful to avoid, wherever possible, imposing a duty by reference to a definition which, if he will pardon the expression, may not hold water. While the hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that he would be able to recognise sherry in all circumstances, it would be impossible to define it satisfactorily for the purposes of the law. After all, if one ignores the question of taste, which I have no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, and considers some of the physical characteristics, the first one that comes to mind is colour, but I am informed that port can be white, and we all know that certain sherries are reddish brown.
I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough appreciated the difficulties, because he asked why we could not deal with it in some way by reference to the country of origin. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) pointed out that the Amendment does not purport to do that, and I should like to deal with that point, because, if that were possible, the hon. Gentleman could put down another Amendment to deal with the matter in that way. However if we were to proceed by reference to the country of origin —for example to exclude from this reduction heavy wines from Spain or South Africa—that would be contrary to the most favoured nation provisions of G.A.T.T., so we cannot do that.
I hope, therefore, that, even if I have not convinced the hon. Member for Loughborough on the question of desirability, he will take the view that it is impracticable to do as he desires, and will seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Finance Bill often tends to be a rather narrow, technical Bill. Per-

haps this year it is rather more narrow and more technical than most. Therefore, it is not bad that we should open on an Amendment which is not characterised either by narrowness or by being of a technical nature.
We have provoked a series of fine speeches from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) began in very self-confident form by proclaiming himself the Member for Bristol, and then, rather less self-confidently, tried to strike up an alliance with one of the hon. Members for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: No. I hasten to tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) that the horn. Member for Kidderminster is, and always has been, absolutely unique in this House.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is an absolutely unique representative in this House, and we are very glad of that.
Let me hasten to assure the hon. Member for Bristol, West that in supporting the Amendment I feel no ill-will towards those distinguished wine merchants in his constituency, the more distinguished but perhaps the lesser known of whom I have had happy relations with for many years.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) intervened as a wine merchant. He did not give me complete confidence in his position as a wine merchant, because he said that it was impossible to distinguish between sherry, port or champagne.

Sir G. Nicholson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather too full of his subject. He is getting a little muddled. I never mentioned champagne. I said, purely from the fiscal point of view, that it was difficult to distinguish between any fortified wines. I was not saying it was impossible to distinguish between port and sherry—even the hon. Member could do that.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member may think that he did not say that it was impossible to distinguish between them, but the fact remains that he found it impossible and I am bound to say that it gave me the feeling that I should


prefer to patronise the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol, West. We were not discussing whether it is difficult to define them. I should have thought it perfectly easy to distinguish between them.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) complained bitterly that my hon. Friend .the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) had introduced deep political overtones into this debate. The fact is that the Chancellor introduced this concession to the Committee in his Budget speech in explicitly political terms. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt at all to say that this year he thought there was a fiscal case for reducing the duty on heavy wines, whether port or sherry or champagne.

Sir G. Nicholson: Champagne is not a heavy wine.

Mr. Jenkins: Champagne is included in Clause 1. I agree that it is not a heavy wine, but the reduction applies to champagne and chateau bottled clarets or burgundies bottled on the estate.
The Chancellor did not attempt to advance his case purely on fiscal grounds. He put it forward explicitly—and this was underlined by the Economic Secretary—on the ground that, had it not been for the particular consideration of helping Portugal, he would not have done it this year. The right hon. Gentleman was quite explicit about that and, therefore, this is a political concession. It is a concession specifically introduced to solidify the not very solid structure of the European Free Trade Association.
While we may be prepared to accept the need for such a concession, it is rather difficult to accept a rather expensive concession which is not justified on fiscal grounds and with no particular social argument in its favour. During the Second Reading debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) argued powerfully against this being a social priority this year. There is no fiscal and no social argument in favour of this concession it is made only for the benefit of Portugal. It will cost a good deal of money to bring a relatively little benefit. It is an imprecise weapon. There is no

doubt that a substantial part of the concession will go to sherry and therefore, in broad terms, go, first, to Spain and, secondly, to South Africa.
In this Committee we may have varying views about what we think should be our attitude to South Africa and still more varying views about our attitude to the Spanish régime. But I doubt whether any hon. Member would say that at present South Africa ought to be singled out and be given a trade concession in the way that the Chancellor has singled out Portugal. A similarly strong argument—although the case for putting it is not so overwhelming— could be advanced regarding Spain. That is the objection we feel to this very broadly drawn concession.
It is true that the duty on heavy wines generally is still rather higher, in relation to light table wines, than was the case before the war, but it is not as much as a few years ago. Sherry received a substantial concession in the 1959 Budget, when the duty came down from 50s. to 38s. Since that time the consumption of sherry has been rising rapidly, and it is probable that it has been rising more rapidly since the 1958 Budget than the consumption of light wines, though the contrary was the case before 1958. I do not think we need worry unduly about the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham, about whether we are breaking national habits and that not enough sherry is being consumed.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In the public houses.

Mr. Jenkins: I should have thought that, on the whole, far more sherry is being consumed, and a great deal of it at the expense of the Chancellor.

Mr. Nabarro: Not in the public houses.

Mr. Jenkins: In any case the Chancellor has not put his case forward on the ground of the ill-treatment of people in public houses, but on the ground of the need to bolster up Portugal as a member of the Free Trade Association, so do not let us hear too much about the public houses.
If it be that the sherry trade is faltering because the price charged in public houses is such that people cannot afford to buy it, there are certain other actions,


independent of the Chancellor, which would appear to be open to the trade. I do not know how many hon. Members read the article in yesterday's Financial Times, which was of interest to me in view of the debate this afternoon. It referred to the structure of the sherry trade. Among a number of other interesting facts, the article drew attention to the extraordinarily high rate of retailers' profit in the sherry trade.
Of the price paid by the consumer— I think that this would be the price paid when buying a bottle, and that the margin would be greater still if the customer were buying by the glass over the bar counter—

Mr. Nabarro: It would depend on how good is the barmaid.

Mr. Jenkins: On a bottle of sherry the retailer's margin is, as the retailers or the trade choose to state it, 28 per cent. But to state it in that way is false, because that is 28 per cent. of the cost to the consumer, which includes duty, and it is 28 per cent. of the end-price. In the retail trade, it is more usual to cite the mark-up price independent of duty or Purchase Tax, or whatever it might be, and to cite it at a percentage of the price at which the retailer received the goods and not the end price. Clearly, from that point of view it would be right that the mark-up in the sherry trade is not 28 per cent., but as much as 56 per cent.
Without any ill-will towards the constituents of the hon. Member for Bristol, West, or the constituents of any other hon. Member for that matter, it seems to me that if the sherry trade is faltering, or, as was suggested at Question Time yesterday, this concession which the Chancellor has made is not being passed on wholly to the consumer, there is the substantial remedy open to the retailers to reduce this very high profit margin of 56 per cent. I hope that this will be taken into account.
We are dissatisfied that, without any fiscal or social argument in its favour, it was found necessary to extend the concession given to port—on arguments which are not overwhelmingly compelling, but which we are compelled to accept from the Chancellor—to the rather priggish drink of sherry.
The Economic Secretary said that it was difficult to define what was sherry with complete satisfaction, but he did not reply entirely to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. I think that we should have to scrap a good deal of the contents of the Customs and Excise schedules if we were only to put in categories which could be defined with absolutely complete and logical clarity.
I recognise the point that he made about G.A.T.T., if we were to deal with this question on a basis of countries of origin, but I do not think that he applied himself as closely as he might have done to seeing whether it is not possible to produce a working definition of what sherry is in common parlance. Therefore, we do not regard this situation as entirely satisfactory. We hope that we shall get better replies from the Government as the Committee stage proceeds. None the less, in view of the technical difficulties, which we appreciate, although they are not so overwhelming as the Economic Secretary suggested, I do not ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on this first Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Sir G. Nicholson: The hon. Member made an attack, not based on malice, but on ignorance, upon the wine trade and allied trades. I should point out that it is a keenly competitive trade and margins of profit, at all stages, are no more than are justified. I assure him. quite sincerely, that people are not exploited. I assure him, also, that wine merchants have lost heavily on the reduction of duty, because they had to write down the value of duty-paid stocks. I ask the Committee to believe that in a trade where competition is very keen merchants do not make extraordinary rates of profit.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I should have been happy to leave the matter there, but, as the hon. Member is apparently anxious not to do so, may I say that my attack, as he was kind enough to say, was not founded on malice. I do not set myself up as having a great degree of expert knowledge, but I based it quite specifically on a particular analysis of profit margins in this trade published in a highly reputable financial newspaper yesterday.
If the hon. Member is challenging what I said, I am not in a position to say that everything that the Financial Times says is accurate. If he likes to tell me that a 56 per cent. mark-up, which I suggested came out from that article, is quite untrue, of course the Committee will accept that. I should like to know his detailed refutation of the detailed arguments placed before the Committee.

Sir G. Nicholson: I should be happy to show the hon. Member a typical wine merchant's accounts, from which he would see what the position is.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I should not like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) in the suggestion that malice was shown against the wine trade—

Sir G. Nicholson: I said that the hon. Member was not basing his argument on malice.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry; I did not understand.
Although I am not an economist, and cannot speak of percentages or grand totals, I understand that the concession made by the Chancellor in 1958 amounted to 2s. a bottle, and it should be the same under this Budget. So far as I know, the whole concession was passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has dealt admirably with the arguments advanced by the Economic Secretary, so I do not propose to go into the matter further except to say that I feel considerable disquiet as to what is likely to happen if this is a sample of the kind of negotiations in such a delicate matter as the European Free Trade Association negotiations. If we have to hand out concessions to other countries whenever we do so to one country, we are in a very parlous state.
Although I am not satisfied with the arguments of the Economic Secretary, or of hon. Members opposite, who seem to take an entirely political view of the situation, I think that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will agree that we are most anxious to make progress with consideration of the Bill. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: The objections raised to this Clause, and the Amendment which has just been withdrawn, have been limited to the simple aspect of the question of country of origin. If certain political aspects have been drawn into the argument, I am bound to say I think the Chancellor drew them on himself by the rather limited way in which he produced the reasons for this particular reduction in the duties on light wines imported in bottle and on heavy wines.
What he neglected to do was to point out that, quite apart from the argument which had been adduced on the more political aspects of the matter, there is a case for doing this. If we are to be frank, we have to acknowledge that it is a case which has been pressed on the Chancellor for several years in succession by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. What the Chancellor is doing—and I think that to this extent he can make an arguable case—is to restore the relationship which existed prewar as between the duties on heavy wines and light wines, when, traditionally, it was the practice to maintain the duty on heavy wines at a level twice that an light wines.
That relationship was very seriously disturbed in 1949. Although the duties on both light and heavy wines increased steadily during the war years, in 1949, for quite special reasons and to encourage the consumption and sale of light wines, the duty on light wines not in bottle was reduced to 13s. a gallon, whereas that on heavy wines was maintained at 50s. a gallon. It is that great disparity, so different from the situation which existed before, which has given rise to the very natural and understandable disquiet in the trade which has been affected. Manifestly, it will be seen in the fact that it had the result of showing an increase since 1938–39 in respect of heavy wines of 375 per cent. but in respect of light wines of only 225 per cent., compared with spirits of 184 per cent., humble beer remaining at 258 per cent.
The effect has been quite seriously to limit the sale and consumption of port and sherry and to bring about a degree of apparent discrimination between the


heavy and light wines. In 1958, the Chancellor, quite deliberately, tried—in part, at any rate—to redress the balance, although he did not completely do so, when he reduced the duty on heavy wines from 50s. to 38s. Now, I take it, he is restoring completely the old relationship.
Although some of my hon. Friends, quite understandably and naturally, feel that this reduction is a little incongruous and to some extent untimely in a Bill which, elsewhere, steps up very materially the duty on tobacco, which fails to make provision for certain needy sections of the community in very desirable social directions—-which fails, for example, to make any provision in respect of the restoration of housing subsidies and the like—nevertheless, recognising the technical purpose of this Clause and the fact that on the ground of equity as between two types of wine there is a case to be made for it, we shall not resist the passage of the Clause.
This particular case, within the limited field of wine, on the ground of equity, ought to have loomed larger in the answers adduced by the Government spokesman for this reduction rather than the point he made that this was at the request of the Portuguese in negotiations connected with the European Free Trade Association.
There is another factor which, I think, can be fairly adduced in favour of the proposition. It is that it should put an end to that very undesirable practice which has been encouraged by the two great disparity of rates between duties on light and heavy wines. I refer to the practice which has grown up of blending low-strength foreign wines with high-strength imported wines and producing a wine as strong as sherry, for example, but, nevertheless, one on which duty is paid at only 25s. on the foreign or 20s. on the Commonwealth product, as compared with 38s. on genuine sherry. I do not think that that can be justified. It is not even good from the consumer's point of view to have these combinations thrust upon him.
Nevertheless, I do not think that the Chancellor should be credited with undue generosity in this respect because he is not likely to reduce the revenue

although he estimates a reduction of £2½ million as a result of the change made in this connection. The experience in light wines has been that the 1949 reduction of duty made consumption shoot up from 1·3 million gallons in 1949 to 7 million gallons in 1959 and the revenue received increased from £1·7 million to £5 million. Even the modest reduction that was made in the case of heavy wine duties in 1958 has accounted for an increase of consumption of 10 to 15 per cent.
If, therefore, we do not resist the Clause, we have our hesitations about it on the ground of the untimely choice of this subject for a reduction in duty when, elsewhere, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not felt it possible to be more generous in directions which would be more socially desirable. Within the limited reasons which I have adduced, however, we shall not resist the Clause.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his arguments, but there is one respect in which I agree with him. Experience will, perhaps, show that this lowering of duty may well lead to an increased consumption of the wine. It is the feeling of the wine trade that it will do its best, by way of saying "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this concession, to see that he does not lose out in the end.
I could not let the Clause pass without saying a sincere "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend for the concessions which he has made, not only in 1958, but on this occasion, too.

Dr. Bennett: We have covered the subject of the fortified wines well enough and I am glad that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) has endorsed the feeling that we are likely to put an end to the undesirable blending of some curious mixtures under the guise of a particularly duty-evading fortified wine.
I should like to add a word of thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having seen fit to remove an anomaly which, I believe, dates from the latter years of the last century—the double standard of duty on


an identical product, the light table wine —by removing the extra surcharge on wine which has been put in bottle overseas.
I forget the precise delicious quotations to which we have been treated on earlier occasions about this matter. I believe that it was held forth as a chance for the bachelor to contribute, as he no doubt wished to do, towards the well-being of the State. No doubt, the descendants of those bachelors are duly grateful. I am most relieved to see that the rates of duty are now to be charged on the product on an easily identifiable scale and will not bring in perjudice, matrimony, or anything else. I am sure that the whole country will be grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SWEETS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Hon. Members will notice that I have put down an Amendment to the Clause, in page 2, line 5, at the end to insert:
(2) For the purpose of this section sweets shall not include intoxicating liquors which are made from apple or pear juice and which, if of fifteen degrees proof or greater strength, would, except for the passing of section two of the Finance Act, 1956, be cider (which includes perry) and not sweets within the meaning of the Excise Acts.
I have suggested to you, Sir Gordon, that the point I intended to make is more than adequately covered in the new Clauses and Schedules and Amendments to the Seventh Schedule and the now Schedule put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and others of my hon. Friends. Those, of course, were not put down until last night. In my view, they will be much more effective in doing what I wish to do.
I should like to make a few observations at this stage, however, in the hope of being able to give my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plenty of warning of what I have in mind. His experience as Minister of Agriculture will have taught him that he can expect a rapidly increasing production of apples from the plantings of

recent years, it taking about seven years for a tree to bear full fruit for the first time. Many of the trees planted just after the Second World Wax are about to come into ever-increasing yield year by year. There is, therefore, a serious problem for the British apple grower.
There is no doubt that there was an adverse effect in the take-up of apples as a result of Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1956. That was the Section which classified as sweets cider and perry over 15 degrees of proof and limited cider only to apple or pear juice with one fermentation from fruit which had been in its natural state at the start of the process and did not contain any ethyl alcohol obtained from any other substances.
4.45 p.m.
The effect of all that was to impose a duty of 10s. 6d. per gallon on still cider under 27 degrees proof, and 18s. 6d. if it was over 27 degrees and £1 8s. 6d. on the sparkling cider, of whatever proof. I do not know what the result of all that has been. I am told that the Treasury had in mind to raise a sum running into millions of pounds from that duty, but that from the reclassified cider it has, in fact, produced under £100,000. If the original duty has failed in achieving its object, there is good reason for making considerable alteration. I will leave my remarks concerning the degree of the alteration until we discuss the appropriate new Clause and new Schedule.
It is, however, worth bearing in mind from the viewpoint of the horticultural grower that the British cider manufacturers have done their best to take as much as possible of the cull apples from the main crop in this country. A firm operating in East Anglia takes many thousands of tons of apples from my constituency. It has not been greatly helped by the 1956 Finance Act. Some concession should be made especially to enable these firms to compete adequately with some fierce competition which they are meeting.
Some companies are putting on the market a drink which is made largely from imported pulp. Certainly, I wish to give no encouragement to those people. When we have a surplus production of apples and pears, it is wrong to start importing pulp and making fruit juice into drink, which is then sold to the public who, I am sure, if the choice were available, would much prefer home-grown


fruit. I hope that my right hon. Friend now has in mind what we intend to do and I am grateful to the Committee for having heard me.

Mr. Redhead: Obviously, the Clause, so far as it is consequential on Clause 1 in making corresponding reductions for British wines, will not be resisted from this side of the Committee. I wish, however, to add a word of commendation of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), to which, I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his attention.
Beyond that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman once again to consider the archaic and somewhat misleading title of "Sweets". It gives rise to considerable confusion in people's minds. Even hon. Members have inquired whether it means that there is a duty on confectionery under this heading. In common parlance, all that it means is British wines. I notice that in reporting upon the matter, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise adopt that nomenclature and I urge that in future legislation the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be persuaded to do likewise and drop the archaic form.

Mr. Barber: I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). If it is agreeable to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the Committee, it would be preferable to deal with the point of which he has spoken and of which my right hon. Friend and I have taken note, when we reach the appropriate new Clause. I should, however, correct something that my hon. and gallant Friend said, no doubt inadvertently, about the duty on strengthened cider. The duty on strengthened cider is limited to any cider or perry of a strength of 15 degrees proof spirit or more. Therefore, anything under that is not liable to duty.
I want to make an admission to the Committee, in view of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) said. After my right hon. Friend had introduced his Budget and the Resolutions were being put, I heard a reference to a duty on sweets, and for one terrible moment I thought that a wrong power had been taken and that for once I had slipped up.

Mr. H. Wilson: After that alarming confession by the Economic Secretary, perhaps he will tell us what he intends to do about it. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that there is something in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) that this is a very old form of words. Would the Chancellor think about it again and perhaps amend the Bill on Report? I do not suggest that it is a substantial point. Can he not get rid of this archaism now and replace "Sweets" by the clearer title of "British Wines", as suggested by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Barber: I agree that it is somewhat of an anachronism and is very misleading. I am not sure whether it would be possible to do anything this year on the Report stage, but I can give the undertaking of my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that between now and the next Finance Bill we will look into the question and consider whether it is possible to make this definition in some way which is more palatable and more understandable.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman satisfy my curiosity about one of the sweets? It is called metheglin. What is it? Is it a fertile source of revenue?

Mr. Barber: I could not answer that "off the cuff". I can only tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that our revenue comes from all British wines, which includes that one, which I have not myself tasted.

Mr. Wilson: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to pass the Bill without having studied the very learned discussions which we had on this subject two years ago? Does he not recall that there were some very authoritative speeches on metheglin? Was it not then widely understood in the Committee—I hope that it is still the case—that metheglin was much favoured in the Principality, being very similar to Cornish mead, or, at least, mead made in other parts of the country? Is not that so?

Mr. Amory: I am advised that it is spiced mead.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SPIRITS: ABOLITION OF CERTIFICATES AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Redhead: Before the Committee is asked to part with this Clause, we might seek, if only for the sake of clarity, an explanation of its purpose. From reading its terminology, I presume that it means no more than an amendment of administrative procedure.
Thus far in the course of the Bill we have had no explanation of its purpose. Neither its object nor its reason is clear from a reading of the terms of the Clause, particularly as it is accompanied by an equally long and somewhat complicated Schedule, with which we shall deal later. The whole thing is rather difficult for a layman to follow.
Therefore, before the Committee parts with the Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary might be good enough to explain its purpose and make clear why it is introduced at this stage. In particular, someone might explain whether any difficulties have been encountered with the form of procedure. I think that this is true, but I should like confirmation that it does not in any way affect the rate of duty on spirits. I should like some assurance that the new procedure represents as adequate a safeguard for the Revenue, as the old procedure did.

Mr. John Rankin: May I raise a point for clarity from another angle? In subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5 there are repeated references to "this Act" and "the Act of 1952". In Clause 3 (4) there is a reference to "the Act of 1952" and in subsection (5) the words are
the provisions of the Act of 1952 specified in the First Schedule to this Act".
There is a certain amount of confusion in those references, because the Act being referred to in some cases is the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. If we turn to the Seventh Schedule, the subsections which I have quoted become clearer than they are in the context of the Bill itself. As we refer at the very opening of Part I to the Finance Act, 1958, and later to the Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, there is no reason why we should not refer to

the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 when we are talking about it in Clause 3.
I agree that this is a matter of verbal clarity. I do not say that the references cannot be followed if the Schedule is consulted when one is reading the Bill, but there is no reason why the clarity should not be obvious, rather than that hon. Members reading the Bill should have to search for it. I hope that the Government Front Bench will take that point to heart and that we shall see a change on Report stage.

Mr. Barber: I will certainly take to heart the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). The reason for using the phrase " the Act of 1952", which is defined in Clause 73, is because that Act, namely, the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, was a consolidation Measure and is in general use, as opposed to the yearly Finance Acts, which are of more specific application. I will certainly consider the hon. Member's point.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead): asked for an assurance that the Clause does not affect the rate of duty. I give him that assurance readily. He asked also for a brief explanation of its purpose. The purpose of the Clause is twofold. Its first purpose is to abolish spirits certificates and to substitute a lighter form of control involving the use of spirits consignment notes. The second purpose of the Clause is to extend for all the purposes of Customs and Excise the existing definition of "Scotch whisky".
As regards the change from spirits certificates to spirits consignment notes, at present these certificates have to accompany the transport of spirits in two circumstances—first, if they are sent out from the stock of a rectifier or a com-pounder and, secondly, if they are sent out from the stock even of a dealer or a retailer in wholesale quantities.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West asked whether I could tell him that the Revenue would be secure under this new more lax form of control. Again, I am happy to be able to give him that assurance. He obviously realises, having put the question, that the smuggling of spirits still presents a problem, as, indeed, do the difficulties which sometimes arise when non-duty paid spirits are stolen from warehouses.
Some form of control is obviously essential. I believe that this new form of control will commend itself to the wine trade. It will help the trade considerably because, apart from anything else, the certificate will no longer have to accompany the spirits on their journey, but can in future be sent by post. It will also be of advantage to the Revenue.
I think I need do no more than draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the definition of "Scotch whisky", which has hitherto had only a limited application, is now to be used for all the purposes of Customs and Excise. This is a matter of some importance. It will be of value to the Scotch Whisky Association in its dealings with foreign Governments. It will permit a better control of labelling of whisky in warehouses and will restrict the use of the term "Scotch whisky" in all Revenue documents. This provision, I think, is merely a commonsense extension of an existing definition and something which will be most important and useful to one of our most important export trades.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Clause 4.—(REPEAL OF ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not think that it is necessary to say very much on this subject, because we have at last achieved our objective of total abolition of the tax. The arrangement proposed in the Clause whereby the tax will not be collected for a certain period, although technically still due, is an obvious commonsense method of dealing with the situation.
I think it fair to say that, in the present condition of the cinema industry, the Chancellor is perhaps not quite as generous as he led us to suppose in the Budget debate, because the amount that he would have collected had he not abolished the tax would not have been anything as large as he said. However, we do not begrudge the right hon. Gentleman his claim to generosity, because we

are glad that he has abolished the tax and we can fairly say "better late than never."
It is a pity that this tax was not abolished in earlier years, because it has been a bad thing for the industry to have the excuse of Entertainments Duty which has enabled a number of exhibitors, more particularly, perhaps to delude themselves into thinking that it was only the Entertainments Duty which was their trouble and, as a result, into postponing the rationalisation of the industry suggested by Mr. John Davies and Mr. Clifford Barclay at a famous conference in Gleneagles, about three or four years ago. I think that the Chancellor would have been a better friend to the cinema industry had he taken this decision some time back.
The other point I wish to make is that this abolition of Entertainments Duty will be of most benefit to the larger and more prosperous cinemas for the simple reason that the smaller ones were already exempted from tax under earlier concessions. I think it fair to say that the industry has been looking at this point recently and has expressed a little disquiet to the effect that it is precisely the smaller people who are not going to benefit and that to those who hath shall be given, which, of course, happens in other spheres of life.
We may be asked later to look at another aspect of the industry, namely, the statutory levy, and to do something to readjust it so as to make it a little more just and to see that those who are getting the maximum relief under this Clause shall pay, perhaps, a larger share of levy towards the production side of the industry.
We on this side of the Committee have always expressed great sympathy with the exhibitors, Who will, I think, benefit most by the abolition of the duty. I think the reckoning is that in a full year they will get about £4½ million extra revenue through the 'abolition of the tax. But we are also very much concerned with British film production as well as exhibition.
I think it right to say that the producers expect to get, roughly, £½ million as a result of the abolition, but one must, of course, also point out that cinema attendances are still falling. I believe that the official estimate is that


one may even have to calculate another 10 per cent. fall in attendances in the next twelve months. I hope that that is an over-estimate. But if the estimate is correct, then, of course, one must recognise that the takings of the industry will fall by an extent which will almost exactly wipe out the benefit of the abolition of the tax. Therefore, anything that the industry can do to reorganise and to strengthen itself is all to the good.
I was much interested to see in the newspapers this morning a report of the conference of one of the main trade unions in the industry, N.A.T.K.E., in which one of their principal spokesmen said how necessary it was to concentrate the industry in those cinemas and those areas where it is likely to have the best return, which would be better for the general health of the industry. That is something which some of us have been preaching for some while. It is partly because the abolition of the duty will help the industry to face its problems realistically that we welcome the provisions in the Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: Before we part with the Clause, I wish to express on behalf of the consumers, the people who go to the cinema, dismay that, notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's generosity in abolishing the last vestige of Entertainments Duty on the cinema, not a penny piece by way of rebate on the price of cinema seats is to find its way into the pockets of the viewers.
The cinema owners and those associated with them have expressed the view that there will be no reduction in the price of cinema seats notwithstanding the Chancellor's abolition of Entertainments Duty. For years, Mr. Blackburn, you have sat in that Chair presiding over Committees and listening to arguments from all quarters of the Finance Committee to the effect that the cinemas are empty because of the Entertainments Duty. But once the duty is abolished nothing is going into the pockets of the viewers.
I think that that is a very bad show indeed on the part of the cinema owners. They ought to have reduced the prices of the seats. If what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) says is correct, that cinema attendances are still falling, then the owners and

exhibitors have only themselves to blame for that. I have no sympathy with them at all.

Mr. Rankin: We are grateful, of course, to the Chancellor for his decision to abolish Entertainments Duty. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman really anticipated events and that he abolished the duty before it abolished itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, I think that he somewhat exaggerated the occasion, because nobody within the industry expected for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman would extract the sum that he suggested he was losing, namely, a sum of the order of £7 million.

Mr. Amory: I recognise the point which the hon. Gentleman is making and which is the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I think it a perfectly fair one. My unfortunate duty is always to have to count my chickens before they are hatched.

Mr. Rankin: We have realised that for a number of years, but whenever we have made that point at Question Time the Chancellor has always been somewhat loath to recognise it. Of course, no blame attaches to him, and we are grateful for what he has done.
The interesting point to me was that the actual sum anticipated would have been £5 million had the Chancellor not, quite properly, abandoned the duty. The interest in that sum lies in the fact that it was also the first amount that was extracted from the cinema industry forty-four years ago when Mr. Reginald McKenna introduced the duty for the first time. He said in his Budget speech of that year that he anticipated, as the right hon. Gentleman so often did— perhaps "calculated" is the proper word—that the industry would yield £5 million.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I think that my hon. Friend should remember that it was not a tax on the industry, but on the public, the people who went to the cinema.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me.

Mr. Rankin: Of course, I am very familiar with the whole position.


[Laughter.] Of course I am. I must be lacking in the gift of humour, because I fail to see any humour in the statement which I have just made. I hope that I am familiar with the position of the industry generally and with every aspect of the tax situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) has repeated a point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I will not go back on that, for I was merely pointing out that the amount of tax estimated to be derived from the industry by Mr. McKenna was £5 million and the amount of tax which would have finished the cycle would also have been £5 million. In the years between, however, the sum climbed from £5 million to nearly £40 million, and it finished at £5 million. If one tries to calculate the total, as I have tried to do while sitting here, one sees that at least £1,000 million has been paid in tax by the cinemas over these forty-three years.

Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that when the tax was introduced in 1915 there were very few cinemas. The tax was mainly on theatres. The cinemas were built between the wars, between 1920 and 1939.

Mr. Rankin: The tax was introduced in 1916 and it was labelled Entertainments Duty, as it is still labelled in the Bill. That is the context in which I am speaking. Throughout the years the other aspects of entertainment to which the tax applied have been gradually released, and many of us have claimed since that it should have been called a cinema tax. Nevertheless, the term Entertainments Duty is still used. The amount collected from the other sources to which my hon. Friend referred was relatively small. In many cases the theatre was making a negligible contribution to the tax. The big contribution came from the cinema. In suggesting a total of £1,000 million, I was making allowances for all the other sources of entertainment which were covered by the tax. We must realise the enormous sum paid from the cinema trade to Chancellors of the Exchequer throughout these years.
When the hon. Member for Kidderminster criticises the cinemas on the

ground that they have not reduced prices, he should recollect the great contribution which the cinemas have made financially and in many other ways, for instance by propaganda in times of distress and of need. He must put in the balance against what he said the other aspects of the work done by the industry.

Mr. Nabarro: I was not being rude about it. I wanted to make the point that for years past they have been lambasting me, as an hon. Member, because they said the cinemas were empty largely due to the incidence of Entertainments Duty. I alway quarrelled with that; I said that it was due much more to television than to anything else. Now that we have got rid of the Entertainments Duty they refuse to give back anything to the cinemagoer.

Mr. Rankin: I did not suggest for one moment that the hon. Member was being rude in what he said, nor am I being rude in referring to him. But he said that the public had not received back a penny piece by way of price reductions, and it is fair to say that, except on one occasion, which was three years ago, at no time when we have discussed this matter have they said that if the tax were reduced part of it would be applied to a reduction of prices. I have been in fairly close touch with the cinema people on the occasions when they have been here, and I can recollect only one occasion on which we were discussing this matter when they made a definite statement that if the tax were reduced, part of it would go towards reducing prices. I said to them at that time—and I think I repeated it in the House—that that was an unwise thing to do, for the reason that great developments were taking place in the industry, which involved much capital investment, and that a large majority of cinemas could not afford these new techniques within the cinemas because of a lack of capital.
But we do not want to fight these old battles again.

5.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Order. I am glad that the hon. Member has decided that he does not want to refight these old battles, because that would be out of order on this Clause.

Mr. Rankin: I think you will agree, Mr. Blackburn, that to some extent I was drawn out of order by the interruptions. In any event, we do not want to renew these old arguments. The tax has been abolished, and I am sure that no Chancellor will ever again reintroduce it.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not so sure about that.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member speaking for the Treasury? If so, I hope he will say so. He indicated earlier that he is a unique figure in the proceedings of the House of Commons. If he assumes the mantle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will certainly be a unique figure. I hope that he will not remain seated where he is when he claims to wear the mantle which he has just assumed in the declaration which he has made. He said that the Chancellor may reintroduce the tax.

Mr. Nabarro: What I intended to imply was that I would not trust the Treasury not to reintroduce the tax.

Mr. Rankin: When the Treasury cannot depend on those who sit behind the Chancellor for support, there is every reason why we on this side of the Committee should show our distrust in a more open fashion than sometimes we do.
We welcome the abolition of the tax and thank the Chancellor, but we ask hon. Members on both sides to remember that the cinema industry has also played its part financially and in every other way with the Treasury, and made a great contribution to the needs of this country, very often when it was in great hazard.

Mr. Donald Wade: I welcome the abolition of the duty, and I should only be repeating comments which have already been made if I pointed out that the duty should have been removed several years ago. Unfortunately, many of the smaller cinemas have already gone out of business, and to them this abolition comes too late. I have no doubt that the duty has been a contributory cause to their difficulties, although obviously not the only cause.
When I think of the long discussions which we had last year and the arguments then put forward from the

Treasury Bench in support of partial remission instead of abolition, and when I now find that these arguments have been abandoned, my confidence in the validity of arguments from the Treasury Bench is somewhat shaken. But I must not be churlish when a duty is being abolished.
I also regret the fact that there is to be no reduction in the prices of seats. I should have thought that some of the larger cinemas, which are doing reasonably well, could have made some reduction in prices to their customers. I believe that there is a future for the cinema, though, obviously, there is great competition in view of the development of television. I believe that a good film, particularly a British film, will still continue to attract good audiences, but I think there is a case for some reduction in prices to the cinemagoer.
I readily admit that those who pressed us to urge the abolition of this duty did not pretend that this would necessarily result in a reduction in prices. They based their case on the injustice of this duty, and while I should like to see some reduction in the prices charged by some of the cinemas, I nevertheless welcome the repeal of the Entertainments Duty.

Mr. William Shepherd: I wish to say a word or two on the point about the failure of cinema exhibitors to reduce their prices. Clearly, it would be very desirable if, as a result of forgoing the Entertainments Duty, the prices of seats in cinemas were to be reduced. We would all welcome that, and some hon. Members may take the view that, with the substantial profits being earned by companies concerned in exhibiting, there is great justification for some reduction in seat prices.
I think it is true to say, however, that these large profits are illusory, because if we take the Rank Organisation as an example, it is probably true to say that no more than about 30 or 40 per cent. of its total profits come from exhibition, and that the rest are earned by other activities, many of them outside the cinema business itself. Therefore, there is not the amount available which some people may believe to be the case.
Moreover, I think it is true to say that in the past decade cinemas have not spent enough money on the maintenance of


their establishments. Nor have they paid sufficient wages to their staffs, either on the ground of paying what are reasonable wages or on the ground of obtaining staffs which would give satisfaction to the public. I believe that these requirements—to establish a higher level of building and pay better wages in order to recruit better staffs—are the priorities in the distribution of this amount which will be made available as the result of the repeal of the duty.
We are abolishing this Entertainments Duty, but we are not abolishing duty on all forms of entertainment. We still have a duty upon television, and a substantial duty upon gramophone records.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Football pools.

Mr. Shepherd: I think it is unwise for the Committee to rush to the conclusion that for all time we have abolished duty on entertainments. I am one of those who hold the view that we have in the past ten years drafted towards too much direct taxation and too little indirect taxation, and I do not view this tendency without concern. Therefore, I would not for a moment like to feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Committee take the view that never at any time, in any circumstances, whatever the degree of prosperity, shall we revert to some form of Entertainments Duty. I believe that if we must have indirect taxation—and I believe that we need more of it—we should make it a tax on industries which can bear it. If for any reason an industry cannot bear it, because of change, there is obviously a case for remission, but it would be quite wrong to try to lay down at this stage the principle that there should be for all time the abolition of Entertainments Duty.

Mr. Redhead: While the abolition of the Entertainments Duty has been welcomed on all sides of the Committee, as indeed we welcome it—

Mr. Nabarro: With qualifications.

Mr. Redhead: — with qualifications, and I propose to refer to one myself, I am bound to emphasise the fact that it is a very belated decision. Nevertheless, we welcome it as a logical and just step which has been constantly urged upon

the Chancellor with increasing intensity over the last few years.
I am mindful of the efforts particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who opened from this side of the Committee, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in his persistence in arguing this matter. We are exceedingly glad that it is to end, and it is a salutary comment on a duty introduced in 1916 as a temporary war-time tax which has existed for forty-four years. It is stretching the interpretation of the term "temporary", but I suppose we can take some consolation from the fact that, if the world is not yet free from crises, at least, we have emerged finally from the emergency of the First World War.
There is one aspect of the matter which has just been touched upon by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to which I should like to refer, because the Chancellor was rather cagey about it and made no reference to it, although it is tied up with the question of Entertainments Duty and the limitation on what he is doing in this instance. I would remind him that his predecessor in 1957, when the duty was abolished in respect of all other forms of entertainment, took the view, apparently, because he was conscious of the unfairness of limiting the duty to the cinema, that although he was not willing to forgo the revenue which the cinema, which was the biggest contributor to the duty at that stage, gave him, there was a degree of unfairness about the situation which left the cinema still saddled with the burden of the duty while fighting its battle with competing forms of entertainment, primarily that of television.
The Chancellor of the day, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), in effect said to the cinema industry, "I am not willing to forgo entirely the revenue from the cinema, but as a consolation I will tax your chief competitor," and so he promptly clamped on an Excise duty of £1 on television licences.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a faulty argument. [Interruption.] No, it is completely faulty, because the next year the Purchase Tax on television sets was reduced, which more than offset the temporary increase in the licence, and


the year after that, in 1959, the Purchase Tax on television sets was again reduced, so that it all comes out in the wash.

Mr. Redhead: If the argument is illogical and does not apply, the fault lies with the right hon. Member for Monmouth, when Chancellor, because in making the proposal, he used these words:
Entertainment is not in itself an unreasonable object of taxation and I must obviously continue to look to the patrons of entertainment for a substantial amount of revenue which I should otherwise have to collect in some different way.
On the other hand, there have been many changes since the duty was introduced in 1916 and, indeed, since it was last revised in 1954. Some forms of entertainment are expanding. As they expand they affect the profit of the other types. In particular, television has, in recent years, grown to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments and I have had to consider whether it is bearing a share of taxation comparable with its rivals. I have not overlooked the fact that anyone who buys a television set pays a substantial amount of Purchase Tax upon it. But there is no tax on its use comparable with the tax on the admission price to a cinema. I am satisfied that a fair balance in the taxation of these competitive entertainments is desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]
Those were the grounds upon which the Chancellor imposed an Excise licence duty of £1 on the television licence. While at a subsequent date there were reductions of Purchase Tax on television sets, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), familiar as he is with the subject of Purchase Tax, will, I am sure, acknowledge that they were coincident with many other changes in the Purchase Tax Schedules. In short, I venture to suggest they had nothing whatever to do with this particular aspect of the matter.
5.30 p.m.
What the Chancellor did then, of course, was completely consistent with a principle which used to be applied in relation to revenue duties. If a specific article was taxed, it was thought equitable to place a corresponding tax on any alternative or competing article serving the same purpose. In this way, we had a duty on matches followed by a duty on mechanical lighters. The same principle is to be seen, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster will have noted, in the Purchase Tax Schedules, whatever anomalies he discerns in them.
Although in this instance the television licence duty introduced in those circumstances and for the specific purpose of a countervailing duty was of no benefit to the cinema, the fact that it was adopted raises a pertinent question in connection with this Clause now that the Entertainments Duty on cinemas is to be abolished. Why does the Chancellor maintain the television licence duty? Clearly, the argument adduced for it as a countervailing duty no longer holds good. He is giving up £7,500,000, the estimated revenue from Entertainments Duty in respect of cinemas, but he is holding on to an estimated revenue of £11,500,000 from television licences.
I emphasise that from the limited change in respect of Entertainments Duty which he is now making the public derives no advantage whatever. The remission of Entertainments Duty is not and— I emphasise this in fairness to the exhibitors—was not expected to be passed on to the public. Latterly, the cinema exhibitors have made the point abundantly clear. Although in theory the Entertainments Duty was paid by the public on charges for admission, the case for its remission rested very largely on the fact that, so long as it existed, the cinema proprietors were limited in the opportunities they had for raising their basic prices to an economic level. Only with the removal of the duty, it was said, and with the ability to go on charging the same gross prices to the public would they be able, in their estimation, to be in a fair position to hope for a more economical basis for their business.
In present circumstances, it is relevant to point out that the cinema exhibitors have to contemplate not only rising costs but prospective rising costs, for already the employees of the industry, who hitherto, mindful of the difficulties, have exercised restraint, are now submitting pay claims because of the remission. In the circumstances, it is hardly to be wondered that the cinema proprietors have not felt it possible to pass on the tax remission to the public.
If, therefore, the people generally gain nothing out of this change, they, the licence holders, will still have to meet the duty which is charged directly in respect of the television licence. That situation will continue. I submit to the


Chancellor that it is inequitable to take this step without taking into account the corresponding countervailing duty introduced in 1957.

Mr. Nabarro: Reduce Purchase Tax.

Mr. Redhead: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that line, he will, no doubt, have his opportunities later during the Committee stage. There are some Amendments down which we shall, no doubt, argue in due course. I submit to the Chancellor that, if he feels it right and proper, notwithstanding the step he has taken in regard to Entertainments Duty, to extract revenue from television, he might more profitably direct his attention in some way or other to the enormous profits which are being made in commercial television.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that it was reasonable that the exhibitors should not pass on the benefit of this tax remission to the public because the workers in the industry have put in a pay claim? Is not this a very dangerous doctrine to enunciate with approval? We shall never have a reduction in the duty on petrol because the Chancellor will quite reasonably argue that the workers in the transport industry would demand an equivalent increase in wages to make up for any tax remission, with the result that the public would have nothing.

Mr. Redhead: I referred to that fact as an additional reason for restraint and reserve on the part of the exhibitors, but I did say initially that their position was made abundantly clear, certainly during the last two years, that, given the remission or abolition of the tax which they sought, they would not hope to pass it on to the public. They have, I think, been perfectly frank about it. I am sure that hon. Members who have received representations from the trade will confirm that that has been made abundantly clear. The basic reason has been that, so long as the tax existed, the exhibitors were restricted in their ability to raise their basic prices because every rise in price obviously would attract a higher rate of duty and put the cinema still further out of reach.

Mr. Barber: This proposal has been universally welcomed, with qualifications, by the hon. Lady the Member for

Flint, East (Mrs. White) and her hon. Friends and by the spokesman for the Liberal Party the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) referred to the history of the tax and pointed out, quite rightly, that it was introduced as a temporary war-time measure in 1916. He then referred to what had occurred in 1957 when all forms of entertainment other than the cinema and public television shows were entirely relieved of the duty.
There was a slight further reduction of the duty in 1958 and liability was further limited in 1959. I need not go into the details of the several reductions, but the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East was quite right to point out that many smaller cinemas will not benefit from the reduction because, as a result of the reduction in liability last year alone, less than half the cinemas were, until the Budget, paying any duty at all.
I think you would regard it as somewhat inappropriate, Mr. Blackburn, if I were to attempt to answer in detail the points made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West about the television licence duty and commercial television, but I have taken note of what he said.
Some hon. Members have regretted that this step to abolish totally the Entertainments Duty has not been taken before. I remember well from the debates last year during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that considerable pressure was brought to bear on my right hon. Friend to do just that. He then took the view that the decline in admissions would tend to slow down during 1959 and would cease finally at a level of about 600 million a year. I think it is only fair to him to say that that view at that time was shared by the trade.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend's expectations and those of the trade were not fulfilled. The provisional figure for admissions in respect of the financial year 1959–60 is down to 575 million. The rate of closures has continued to be considerable during this last year. It is important to bear in mind, however, that there have been more closures of cinemas paying no duty than closures of those cinemas which were still paying duty.


It is obvious, therefore, that it is not just the Entertainments Duty which has been responsible for the decline in cinema-going.
I ought to give the Committee two sets of figures which are very striking. Admissions for the year 1958 were 754 million. In 1959, admissions were reduced to 601 million. Net closures of cinemas during 1958 numbered 218. Last year, the number was 434.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) expressed regret that there had been no reduction in the price of cinema seats. I think that he will agree with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who pointed out that the cinema industry has had its difficulties, but, nevertheless, I feel bound to say, although my right hon. Friend has no authority in these matters, that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, regret that it has not been found possible to pass on at least part of this reduction by way of cheaper seats.

Mr. Nabarro: I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Mrs. White: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in discussions with the trade there was any suggestion that any remission should be passed on? Has he any ground for supposing that it should be passed on in this way? I do not want to anticipate something which will come to the House later, but I thought it only right to mention that, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, there are discussions in the trade as a result of which the statutory levy may be adjusted. This will have the effect of making larger cinemas pay to the producers a larger proportion of that levy than smaller cinemas. That to some extent will offset for the larger cinemas the benefit arising from the abolition of Entertainments Duty. To suggest that there should be a considerable diminution in the price of seats is unrealistic in the present state of the industry.

Mr. Barber: I am sorry if the hon. Lady misunderstood me. I did not for one moment wish to minimise the difficulties with which the industry is faced, and I hope that she will acquit me of

making any such suggestion. For that reason, I gave the Committee the figures of closures and of the fall in admissions and pointed out that many of these closures—I think more than half—were of cinemas which were not paying the duty. I would not for one moment suggest that the industry is not having difficulties other than those presented by the Entertainments Duty. All I did was to express my regret that at least some part of the remission could not be passed on.
As this is the occasion of the demise of the Entertainments Duty, I think that the Committee will be interested in the extent to which the yield has fallen in recent years, partly as a result, of course, of reductions in duty. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) spoke of the extent of the contribution of the cinema industry by way of Entertainments Duty The hon. Member was absolutely right. In 1956–57, out of a total of £41 million of Entertainments Duty the yield from cinemas alone was estimated at £35 million. In the following year, out of a total of £27 million, the estimated yield from cinemas was £26 million. By last year it had fallen to £7½ million, to a great extent as a result of the successive reductions which had been made.
The cinema provides a form of entertainment for tens of millions of people, including, I am happy to say, myself. I hope that the Committee will agree that this step is fully justified. It will cost about £7 million in a full year, but, as the hon. Lady recognised, we should be deluding ourselves if we thought that Entertainments Duty was the only difficulty with which the industry is faced. I believe that its abolition will do much to help the industry.

Mr. Rankin: Will not the hon. Member endorse what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he interrupted me? The Chancellor said, in effect, that £7½ million was his estimated return from the industry. He did not say that the abolition of the duty will cost that.

Mr. Barber: No. As I am sure the hon. Member will realise, if one abolishes a duty, it is difficult to give any but an estimated figure. That is why I said that the estimated figure was £7 million.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(TOBACCO.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "three shillings and fourpence" and to insert "one shilling and eightpence".
These figures were not selected at random. In Clause 5 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to increase the Tobacco Duty by 3s. 4d. a 1b. The purpose of the Amendment is to cut in half precisely the amount of the increase, for a variety of reasons. I wish to deal with the general proposition first and then add a word or two to what I said earlier concerning the increase in taxation in this context.
I am a smoker. Twelve times as many people smoke in this country as those who consume the wines referred to in Clauses 1 and 2. Twelve times as many people are interested in the Amendment as are interested in Clauses 1 and 2. The great majority of people, I think, smoke either cigarettes or a pipe. I do not like a fiscal policy which reduces the price of beer by 2d. one year and puts it on cigarettes the following year— [Interruption.] The hon. Member ought to wait until I have finished my sentence —with a General Election in between. I do not like the fiscal policy which takes duty off imported and home-produced wine, which affects only a relatively small part of the population, notoriously the middle classes and well-to-do, and in the same Budget clamps duty on cigarettes and tobacco, which affects the overwhelming majority of ordinary men and women, notably industrial workers. I stigmatise a policy of that kind as fiscal flatulence.

Mr. Ede: It is inflationary.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is confirming what I said in a Budget speech on this topic. All increases in taxation are inflationary.
I want to deal narrowly with the method of increasing the Tobacco Duty in this Finance Bill because of the widespread dislocation it has caused. A packet of 10 cigarettes of a popular brand before the Budget was priced at 1s. 11½d. and a packet of 20 cigarettes of a popular brand was priced at 3s. 11d. I refer to such brands as Player's, Gold

Flake, Capstan and many more like them which most of us who are smokers smoke. An increase of 3s. 4d. a 1b. in the Tobacco Duty has had the effect of raising the price of a packet of 10 cigarettes from 1s. 11½d. to 2s. 0½d. and that of a packet of 20 of the same brand from 3s. 11d. to 4s. 1d.
About £25 million worth of cigarettes are sold every year through automatic vending machines, or, as they are more commonly called, slot machines. All of these machines are designed and manufactured to take florins. Now that the price of the popular brands of cigarettes are 2s. 0½d. for 10 and 4s. 1d. for 20 the whole of that valuable machinery has been immobilised, and much of it cannot be altered.
I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that this machinery contains relatively delicate testing devices to ensure that spurious coins are not put into the slot. A florin is carefully tested by that mechanism. There is only a relatively small clearance round it in the machine and the machine cannot easily be altered to take half-crowns. Even if it were altered to take half-crowns, 5½d. change in coppers for ten cigarettes would have to be given and, as it is not possible within the casement of one and the same machine to provide both for half-crown and two shilling pieces, for a packet of twenty cigarettes it would be necessary for two half-crowns to be inserted and 11d. change in coppers would have to be given. All of this is immensely cumbersome, but in addition it would involve the reconstruction and alteration of millions of pounds worth of these automatic vending or slot machines.
Of all the clumsy and cumbersome devices for raising taxes—first, to select tobacco and then to make the price of 10 cigarettes a halfpenny over the 2s. thereby immobilising the whole of this valuable machinery. It is impossible to conceive a more clumsy method of dealing with a situation than that.
I am not alone in these thoughts. On the day after the Budget the following telegram was dispatched to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish to read it to the Committee. It says:
The Automatic Vending Machine Association regret that the interests of the industry that it represents do not appear to have been taken into account in the increased tax on


tobacco and cigarettes proposed in the Budget speech. The Association have in mind the inconvenience to the public involved in having to receive 5½d. change on 10 cigarettes or 5d. on 20 cigarettes of a standard brand and the costs of up to £750,000 in altering 100,000 machines … that are said to be in operation.
As a result of that telegram to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and as they could not expect any earlier reply, the manufacturers communicated with me—[Laughter.] Yes, and not because I am occasionally critical of the Chancellor. I happen to have been engaged in engineering production for most of my life and I do, therefore, know how immensely difficult it is to alter machinery of this kind—especially when only ½d. is involved—and due, no doubt, to my affiliations outside this House with manufacturing interests, the association communicated with me.
It correctly summarised its views under seven short heads that I shall read. First, the effect of the proposed increase in the tobacco and cigarette duty will be to immobilise the entire sale of cigarettes from vending machines. Second, this disrupts a business whose annual turnover is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the total sales of cigarettes and, in terms of money, £25 million per annum. Third, equipment to the value of £10 million is immobilised. Fourth, the cost of alterations to the machines— if they can be altered at all—is provisionally estimated at £750,000. Fifth, it is estimated that before this trade can be brought into proper working order at the proposed new prices, six to twelve months' work by technicians and engineers will be required in order to alter, or endeavour to alter, the 100,000 machines involved. Sixth, this length of time must inevitably drive many operators of machines into bankruptcy through being unable to meet their hire-purchase commitments on the machines, and thereby cause unemployment in the works that make the machines.
I pause here to explain that most of these machines are sold to small tobacconists on hire-purchase arrangements over a period of two years. The tobacconists rely on paying their instalments month by month on the profits they earn from the sale of the cigarettes through the machines. Obviously, if they cannot sell any cigarettes they find it difficult to keep up their instalments.
The seventh head says—and these are stern words, indeed—that it seems evident to the industry that when framing this proposal which puts the average price of 10 cigarettes at the ridiculously lopsided figure of 2s. 0½d., the practical consideration of selling involved was never taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I say this in the Chancellor's defence. He could not have gone to those in the trade before his Budget and consulted them about increasing the Tobacco Duty —for obvious reasons—but it does seem to me, from what I have said and on careful consideration of the problem, that he could have had very little regard to automatic machine sales before deciding on the particular measure of Tobacco Duty that he would have— 3s. 4d. per 1b.
Let me give to the Economic Secretary two analogies. I wonder what would have happened to the Postmaster-General had he decided to increase the price of a postage stamp to 3¼d. My hon. Friends laugh in derision, but that would be just about as sensible as making the price of a packet of 10 cigarettes 2s. 0½d.—just about as sensible. At one foul swoop every coin slot machine for selling stamps—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fell."] I am sorry; in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), the term is a "fell swoop", not a "foul swoop". As I was saying, had the Postmaster-General done that, every coin slot machine for stamps in the country would have been put out of action.
Suppose that the Postmaster-General had decided to make the price of a local telephone call from a coin box 4½d. instead of 4d.—there being no provision for a halfpenny in any of that automatic machinery. We, in this House of Commons would have been in an uproar in five minutes attacking him; saying how utterly stupid and shortsighted it was either to waste this huge value of machinery or, alternatively, to cause the disruption of the telephone call arrangements and the wastage of resources in skilled labour to make alternative machinery. But none of that would have been any more sensible or any less sensible than to make the price of a packet of cigarettes 2s. 0½d. for 10 and 4s. 1d. for 20—

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is comparing what the Chancellor has done with what the Postmaster-General might have done, but the Postmaster-General would have been fixing prices. What the Chancellor has done is to fix taxes. Is it beyond the resources of the tobacco industry, with its enormous wealth and its inflated dividends, to reduce the price of 10 cigarettes by ½d.? If it can do that, it solves its own problem, and has no need to come to the House for the problem to be solved in this way.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I would have dealt with that point and, I hope, dealt with it faithfully. At the moment, out of a packet of 20 cigarettes that sells for 4s. 1d. about 3s. is duty. It may be 3s. 0½d. but, correct to the nearest penny, it is about 3s. The price of the cigarettes, excluding duty, is of the order of 1s. The margin of profit before taxation on that packet of 20 cigarettes is less than a halfpenny.
Unless the tobacco manufacturers were to sell 10 cigarettes at a loss they could not reduce the price from 2s. 0½d. to 2s. These are published facts. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has challenged me on this point, and I am glad to see him nodding his assent. If he looks up the figures relating to Player's of Nottingham, or Wills of Bristol and other firms, he will find that they could not reduce the price by ½d. on 10 cigarettes unless they were to sell at a loss.
I say to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—though far be it from me to recommend alternative sources of revenue to him—that there are many forms of indirect taxation that do not involve automatic machinery. If he had put a modicum on petrol, for example—I am not recommending it—he would not have immobilised every petrol pump in the country. If he had put a modicum on beer he would not have immobilised all the machinery in the public houses and elsewhere for pulling off pints of ale. He chose the one commodity which is sold very substantially by these automatic vending machines, and because of the amount of the increase in the duty he has caused this huge dislocation in the trade.
6.0 p.m.
The effect of my Amendment is narrow, and I think it is wholly practical in its approach to this problem. If the amount of the duty were cut exactly in half from 3s. 4d. to 1s. 8d. the price of 10 popular brand cigarettes would be 2s., the price of 20 popular brand cigarettes would be 4s.
I am glad to have stimulated so much discussion on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is a little more vociferous than usual. As I was saying, the prices could be 2s. for 10 popular brand cigarettes and 4s. for 20.
Let me make this final point to my hon. Friend. The Treasury is going to pay 50 per cent. of all the losses entailed in altering this machinery. If it costs £1 million to alter the machinery the profits of the manufacturers of the machinery and the buyers of it, the retailers, will be diminished by an amount of £1 million or whatever is the cost of altering the machinery. Because of the diminution of those profits the Chancellor's revenue will fall by a sum equal to the incidence of Income Tax and Profits Tax, being 51¼ per cent. at the rate covered in this Bill. He is not going to get all the revenue he anticipates by increasing the Tobacco Duty. At least in the first year there will be a substantial countervailing charge arising from the fall in profits of those machinery makers.
I repeat, I have never witnessed in this Committee a more cumbersome manipulation of duty than the way the Chancellor has chosen to do it this year. I hope that the Economic Secretary, apart from all the general arguments against Tobacco Duty, will answer these specific points and try to justify to the Committee and to the country why he thinks it is desirable to have a clumsy amount like 2s. 0½d. for 10 popular brand cigarettes and 4s. 1d. for 20.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly give some more calculation of the point about the ½d. profit on cigarettes? Did he mean that this was the manufacturer's profit or the total profit? If it is the manufacturer's profit, would it not be possible to sell cigarettes by a marginal adjustment of the manufacturing,


wholesale and retail profits in the vending machines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Nabarro: No. I do not think it is practicable. Equally I do not think that it is practicable to deal with the matter by selling one less cigarette in a packet, because a dummy has to be inserted to fill the packet out, and that cannot be handled satisfactorily in an automatic machine. Neither would it be practicable to deal with it by the other alternative, by shortening the length of the cigarette, or reducing the amount of tobacco in it. All these are possible alternatives, but as automatic machinery is involved in all of them, the same difficulty arises.
If the manufacturers were to reduce by ½d. their price to the retailers they would be selling at a loss. The margin of distributors' profits on cigarettes is already so low as to be incapable of being further reduced. If any hon. Gentleman opposite doubts this let him go to the co-operative wholesale societies and ask them if they can cut the profits on a packet of 10 standard cigarettes. The co-operatives are always in this trouble, that they have to pay a dividend on popular brands of cigarettes, and that often involves their selling those cigarettes at a loss, so tiny is their margin of profit. I suggest to the Committee that it is not possible to take up this id. by manufacturers, retailers and distributors of all kinds combining together to knock it off, because the margin of profit is itself so slender.
For these reasons I hope that the Committee will support me in this Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: For once, I rise to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and I hope that not only he but a substantial number of his supporters, convinced by his arguments, will support the Amendment in the Lobby when the Division is called. Frankly, though, I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, because I had not before understood him to be a man of half-measures. I would have thought it rather more in keeping with his views on taxation if he had been bold enough, as, perhaps, we may convince him to be between now and the time when the Question is put, to vote against the whole 3s. 4d.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has been a member of the House of Commons since—1945? No, 1950. Does he not know the simple procedural point, that had I put on the Notice Paper an Amendment to abolish the whole 3s. 4d. it would not have been in order and would not have been called? [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] It would have been dealt with on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I wanted my Amendment to knock off half of the duty dealt with in an individual and unique fashion, so that I could make my point about the machinery quite separately from the general point of the increase in the Tobacco Duty.

Mr. Mulley: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his further observations. No doubt, as his influence grows, we shall rearrange the procedure of the Committee so that he can have amenities which at the moment, owing to lack of foresight on the part of those who framed the Standing Orders, are not available.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is no need to criticise the procedure of the Committee in this way. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has been a Member of the House of Commons since, I think, 1945—

Mr. Nabarro: No. I said that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) had been here since 1945, but corrected myself.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member tot Kidderminster has not been here since 1945. It only sounds as long. He probably knows already that the rules of the Committee would entitle him to make his speech on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and then to vote against it, and he could have made his point against the whole tax equally well.

Mr. Mulley: I do not wish to engage in discussion, which, I am sure, would be out of order, on the procedure of the Committee, as distinct from discussion on the Amendment before us. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I rather welcomed the further intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, because I took that to be a pledge to vote against the Clause when the Question on the Clause is put.
While I accept completely the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Treasury in framing the tax increase in such a way as to involve substantial expenditure on the part of all those concerned with automatic vending machines, I would, in parenthesis, say that the Treasury itself will have to pay a substantial part of the cost of new machinery or the cost of making the necessary changes in the machinery. In the meantime, the consumer suffers because a great proportion of these machines, as the hon. Gentleman said, have had to be stopped. I understand that one has to walk a very long time after shop closing hours to get a packet of cigarettes from such a machine.
However, I take a rather different view from the hon. Gentleman. I am an admirer in many ways of the Treasury, and I take it that the Treasury did this because it knew that there were such things as cigarette vending machines, and I think that probably the difficulties now before the Committee arose because the Treasury took the view that smokers comprise such a good source of revenue that at some time or another the Treasury had to break the 2s. price for 10 standard cigarettes.
I view this as a deliberate decision on the Chancellor's part as being an indication that in years to come smokers will have further tax to pay. I believe that this is merely a trial run, otherwise I would take the view of the hon. Member for Kidderminster that, knowing the disclocation that would be caused, the Treasury would not have gone to this extent. The simple point that occurred to the hon. Member and is incorporated in his Amendment, that it would be neater and better for everyone to have had an increase that would mean a price of 2s. for 10 standard cigarettes, is probably within the grasp of the Treasury mind.

Mr. Nabarro: Only just.

Mr. Mulley: The fact that the Treasury has gone beyond that point is possibly an indication of planning for the future and that it wants half-a-crown to be the coin in the machine, which would give 5½d. a packet as possible spoil for the future. I protest very strongly against the picking out of smokers for an unreasonably heavy

share of our national taxation. No one will object that there is taxation on cigarettes, but when one reflects that tobacco alone represents 35 per cent. of the total yield of Income Tax and that £829 million is expected to be collected from this tax, as against £225 million from beer and £155 million from spirits, one sees the size of the contribution which the smoker makes to our national economy.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster often talks about Purchase Tax. Perhaps it is a revelation to recognise that the smoker is expected to pay £829 million in tax this year against a total yield from Purchase Tax of £535 million. When one further reflects that the smokers are contributing more than four times the total of Surtax, and nearly four times the amount of death duties and of the yield of Profits Tax, one realises these are people who are being asked to pay an unreasonably high proportion of our revenue.
Smokers are to be found among all sections of the community, from the old-age pensioner to the millionaire. Smoking is not a test of capacity to pay. In less affluent days, I have seen people exchanging half their daily food for a packet of cigarettes. Therefore, this is not a question of a luxury decision. It would be wrong for the Chancellor to pretend that there is an element of moral judgment in picking out, as his predecessors have succeeded in doing in the past, the smoker for this particularly heavy impost.
The only explanation is that this is a tax which one pays and which one does not notice when one buys in the way one would notice an addition to P.A.Y.E., and that it is thought in Treasury circles to be an ever-present source of additional revenue. It is the pip that will squeak the least. I think that it is only for that reason that every time the Chancellor wants more money he picks on the smoker. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to justify this additional tax on moral grounds and say that the public should not smoke. As a smoker, I freely admit that it is a stupid, dirty and irrational habit.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Nonsense.

Mr. Mulley: I hope that the Treasury does not think that by putting on an additional tax it will discourage people from smoking, because it seems to me that the additional yield is based on the assumption that at least as many cigarettes and as much pipe tobacco will be smoked this year as last.
When the hon. Member for Kidderminster was giving his figures, I was not absolutely certain that the tax on the standard packet of cigarettes, now priced 4s. 1d., was 3s. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor, in reply to the debate, will tell us—and this should be given wide publicity—the actual tax element in the standard packet of 20 cigarettes. I notice that the rather complicated Customs and Excise schedules show that the Customs duty now will be £3 10s. per 1b. for cigarettes and that on that basis, with an increase of 3s. 4d. per lb. or 2d. per packet, the tax could amount to as much as 3s. 6d. per packet of 20 cigarettes.
I shall certainly support the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the Lobby, on the sound principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, but I also hope that he will join with us in the Lobby on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to strike a blow for the smoker and reject this quite despicable duty.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Freeth: If my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had moved this Amendment in Committee on the Bill before 5th May I should probably have supported him, first, for the very cogent reasons which he outlined from the point of the view of the effect of the extra 2d. per packet on the use of automatic vending machines. On that aspect of the matter I should like to mention a point which my hon. Friend did not raise, namely, that it is not only a matter of the profits of those who make, run or let out these vending machines. It is a matter of the comfort or discomfort of the smoker who, when the shops have closed, wants to be able to obtain cigarettes from a machine and who now will not be able to do so for at least a year.
I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might have considered the case of smokers who want

to buy cigarettes after the shops have shut, and particularly those, including troops, travelling on long journeys who want to use vending machines on the railway platforms. I should have thought that there was a strong case for increasing the tax on 20 cigarettes by 1d. instead of by 2d., particularly when the extra annoyance involved in the present increase is experienced throughout such a wide range of the community.
At the beginning of 1958, the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee estimated that 75 out of every 100 men and 41 out of every 100 women smoked cigarettes. That is a fairly substantial proportion of our population. My right hon. Friend, in planning to collect £19½ million extra tax in the current year, is annoying that section of our population virtually beyond endurance—and this is a sum out of a Budget of about £6,000 million. We are dealing with a sum equivalent to ·003 per cent. of the Chancellor's total estimated revenue.
Sometimes, I have a high opinion of the Treasury and sometimes a very low one. I am certain that the Treasury tries to put its Budget estimates on a very conservative basis so that the likelihood of the Chancellor finding himself with a larger deficit above the line than he anticipated will be very small. But in the last financial year there was an error in the estimate of revenue of £305 million, or of 5·7 per cent., and an error in estimated total expenditure of £98 million, or 1·5 per cent., and we are arguing here not about a matter of 5·7 per cent., but of ·003 per cent.
I should have said just after my right hon. Friend's Budget speech that a sum of this kind was one which, frankly, it was not the job of the Chancellor to try to meet by imposing a small amount of very irritating taxation, and I took the view that my right hon. Friend's object of restraining demand could have been met perfectly well by monetary means. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend effectively scuppered any chance of success in that field. In his Budget speech he uttered the following words:
I must tell the Committee that I think it likely that the time may soon arrive when it would be right that we should take other steps to restrain further expansion of private credit; and we stand ready to do so."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1956; Vol. 621 c. 46.]


In the four weeks ending mid-April the statement of bank advances from the clearing banks showed a rise over the month from £81 million to £98 million. This seemed to me an unusually large rise for this third month of the year, although the first quarter normally shows a fairly substantial rise in bank advances. From the inquiries that I made from bank managers, and so on, I discovered that everybody who read my right hon. Friend's Budget speech—and most people found this phrase highlighted in the Press as being the sting in the tail— had taken it as being a plain and frank warning that he intended to introduce credit restrictions, and had, therefore, hurried to their banks to get the overdrafts which they were afraid they would not get if they waited. Therefore, we had an increase in effective demand in the economy of £17 million in the month of March-April Which we need never, I am certain, otherwise have had.
Considering that my right hon. Friend's credit restrictions and hire-purchase restrictions were not announced until 5th May, nearly three weeks after the end of the clearing banks' month to which I have referred, it surely is obvious that the figures which we shall see for the month from mid-April to mid-May are likely to show a further substantial increase in respect of the people who did not get their overdrafts in the first eleven days after my right hon. Friend's rather extraordinary statement and threat. Therefore, on the side of bank advances it seems to me that my right hon. Friend has entailed this country having—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I hope that the hon. Member will deal with the Amendment.

Mr. Freeth: I am sorry, Sir Norman. I thought that I was explaining why I did not feel it possible to vote for a reduction in the Finance Bill by supporting the cut of £19½ million proposed in the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and that one reason was that, owing to my right hon. Friend's mismanagement of the economy, we had already increased the effective demand by £17 million more through bank advances.

Mr. Nabarro: Did my hon. Friend— I want to get this correct; he was facing the other way and I could not hear

clearly—say "owing to my right hon. Friend's mismanagement of the economy"?

Mr. Freeth: That is perfectly correct.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good. Another recruit.

Mr. Freeth: Alas, it is due to my right hon. Friend's mismanagement that I cannot join my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster in the Lobby tonight. As we have had an extra £17 million in demand in that month, and are likely to have a further large increase in bank advances in the month between mid-April and mid-May, with an increase in the last pre-Budget month in hire-purchase debt, not of £16 million, which was the rate of increase in both January and February, but of £31 million, it is, alas, painfully obvious that it would be unsafe to increase demand even by £19½ million as my hon. Friend wants. I therefore regret that my right hon. Friend's mismanagement will cause me to go into the Lobby with him tonight.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The speeches of my hon. Friends and the "noises off" from the Opposition have been so encouraging and the speeches have been so well put—indeed, I have seen smiles on the Treasury Bench, the first time for a very long time—that I am absolutely convinced that the Chancellor is giving instructions that the speech in reply shall be one of acceptance. I hope that while the Government spokesman is accepting the Amendment he will speak for long enough to tell us why it was ever necessary to impose this rise in tax.

Mr. Shepherd: I should like to say a word about the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), although I shall not be able to follow him into the Lobby.

Mr. Nabarro: But my hon. Friend agrees with me, none the less?

Mr. Shepherd: If it were not for the fact that I smoke an occasional cigarette I might be tempted to justify taxation on tobacco as a source of revenue. That is not my intention at the moment. What I want to do is to say a word or two about the precise method used and the amount of the increase.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) believed that there was a good deal of sophistication on the part of the Treasury in fixing this highly significant increase. I do not think there was an element of sophistication on the part of the Treasury. I rise principally to say that it is inevitable that through fiscal changes industry will be affected. It is the duty of Government Departments and, in particular, the Treasury to have more regard for the convenience of industry than they appear to have. I am prepared to believe that in many cases—and there is more than one instance of this matter other than the one with which we are dealing—where the Treasury has done something highly inconvenient to industry it has been done not because it is cussed, but because it has not thought of the effect of the change upon industry.
I am, in effect, asking my right hon. Friend to say that he will give instructions to the Treasury that in the changes that are being made and will be made in the future the convenience of industry will be borne in mind. I would emphasise that many people are involved, not only in this case but in other cases, in a great deal of work and trouble because someone in the Treasury does not think of the resulting effect of changes. We have had the instance in connection with the Purchase Tax where highly inconvenient percentages are chosen, whereas a more convenient percentage would greatly reduce the amount of work in offices. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear to the very able men in the Treasury that they have a duty to regard the convenience of those in industry as well as a duty to regard the interests of the Revenue.
There is a further word that I should like to utter arising out of the interruption by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who seemed to be working himself up into a high state of indignation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster demonstrated beyond doubt that it would not be possible for some manufacturers to reduce their profits by ½d. per packet of 10 cigarettes, but there was some doubt about the retail

margins. The retail margin that at present applies, of roughly 8 per cent. if one is buying as an ordinary retailer without any wholesale advantages, is an exceedingly small one, and it is impossible to make a reasonable living out of such a small margin unless one has a very high turnover.
I do not think that it would be possible for retailers to take out of their very small margin the amount of difference which this tax increase represents. I do not think that we could take the easy way out that the hon. Member for Sowerby would like to take. I do not intend to vote for the Amendment, but I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need, in future changes, to have proper regard for the convenience of those engaged in trade and industry.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am a supporter of the Amendment, but not for the reasons that have been given. What would be the position if the Chancellor, instead of increasing the tax, had reduced it? Would the hon. Gentleman have been prepared to say that the inconvenience to the trade should have denied the consumer that reduction?

Mr. Shinwell: If, as I understand it, the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to reduce the price of my tobacco, I extend to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) my wholehearted support and will willingly follow him into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Nabarro: Get fell in, Manny.

Mr. Shinwell: Somehow, in spite of the hon. Member's emphasis on the iniquities of the Chancellor, I have a suspicion that when it comes to the final fence he may refuse to jump over it, and that will be for me a matter of considerable disappointment.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) and I understood from it that he was in complete accord with the views of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but that because the Chancellor had committed the offence of implying that there might be some restriction of credit, as a result of which there was a rush on the part of those who sought bank advances to consult their bank managers,


he could not extend his support. It occurred to me that if we could defer consideration of this matter for the next month to ascertain whether has predictions were likely to be fulfilled, and to see whether bank advances would rise more substantially than was anticipated by the Chancellor or by the hon. Member, then we might come to a rational conclusion on this Amendment, but as that is impossible we must obviously come to a conclusion now.
I cannot see why Chancellors of the Exchequer should always have a "down"—to use blunt language in this matter—on we smokers. We have heard my hon Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) talking about smoking as a dirty and irrational habit. It is nothing of the sort. People all over the world have been smoking, at any rate in this country, since the days of Sir Walter Raleigh. Although Sir Walter was subsequently beheaded, it certainly was not because of his smoking but because of other offences, into which I shall not enter. I have been smoking since the age of 13. My venerable father, who died two or three years ago at the age of 93—and that was due to an accident—smoked all his life. In his later years I provided him with a regular supply of tobacco.
I therefore deny absolutely and emphatically that smoking is a dirty or an irrational habit, or that it conduces to ill-health, or insanitary behaviour, or anything of that sort. Indeed, if it comes to dirty and irrational habits, some of the oratory that we have to listen to is much more irrational than excessive smoking. I think that it was the late Mr. Baldwin who described oratory as the "harlot of the arts". That surely was irrational and even obscene.
All this nonsense about the effects of excessive smoking being conducive to cancer and other ailments is a lot of poppycock, and all the medical experts are talking through their hats. It depends on the physical constitution of the person concerned. Some people could not smoke a cigarette—I do not smoke cigarettes because I do not think that it is worth while—and could not smoke a pipe of tobacco without turning green. But that is not an argument against smoking. It is an argument against those particular individuals indulging in it. Day by day I have to sit here and listen

to questions about the effect of smoking, and it is a lot of nonsense and "flapdoodle".
Another thing which I must mention about the decision of the Chancellor is that I know how these things are done in the Treasury. I have some knowledge of these matters. The Chancellor is having his Budget prepared for him and he consults a number of officials in the Treasury. They all have ideas as to how taxation should be raised and increased, but very seldom reduced. It never occurs to them that some time they might suggest a reduction in taxation. They would not justify their existence if they did. So, some "fuddy-duddy" in the Treasury comes along, and when the Chancellor says that there is a little gap to be filled, suggests "Let us put it on the poor smoker." Thus this £19 million is put upon the smoker. It is a mere bagatelle compared with the amount that is embodied in the national budget. If the Chancellor had not imposed this extra tax it would not have made the slightest difference to the national economy, which would have carried on just as well.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I may have misled the right hon. Gentleman and the House in talking about ·003 per cent. It should be ·3 per cent. Like others greater than myself, I have been misled by those "damned dots".

Mr. Shinwell: I am not a mathematician. I agree with the late Lord Randolph Churchill that these are "just damned dots" to me. I leave them to the experts and to the mathematicians. It is no use talking to me about percentages and decimals.
I pay 11s. 8d, for 2 oz. of tobacco. Why should I have to pay that simply because the Chancellor has succumbed to the blandishments of someone in the Treasury? He has conceived the silly notion that in order to balance the Budget he must impose this tax on the smoker. I see no sense in this at all.
We have to consider not people like ourselves, who can afford to smoke excessively—some of us even smoke cigars at great cost—but the wider public, the working classes, the poor people who want a smoke and regard it as a necessity. It is not merely a luxury but a necessity for many people. We impose


this tax on them and it is one that I do not think people should endure without strong protest. On their behalf I make a strong protest. I wonder why some of my colleagues on the Front Bench do not take part in this discussion.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am waiting until my right hon. Friend finishes.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friends seem to foe waiting a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am bound to say that there was no attempt on the part of any of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to rise, and it was precisely because of their hesitation that I rose. It was because I saw nobody ready to get up that I did so in order to make the protest that I think ought to be made.

Mr. H. Wilson: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are always most grateful for his help, especially on a Finance Bill. Perhaps I should point out to my right hon. Friend, who has no doubt studied the Order Paper, that our Amendment on this important matter on the tax on tobacco is more fundamental than that at present being debated. That is still to come.

Mr. Nabarro: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that it is more fundamental?

Mr. Wilson: Furthermore—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it any part of the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to decide on your behalf, evidently, Sir Norman, which are fundamental Amendments and which are not? Is it not an impertinence and a reflection on the Chair to suggest that my Amendment is not fundamental?

The Temporary Chairman: I had not observed any reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Nabarro: I had.

Mr. Wilson: If I may continue, our main argument on the subject of the tobacco tax will be on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", when we propose to oppose the whole of the increase. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is suggesting only a reduction in the increase. That is why we are reserving what we have to say for the later debate.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings. These interjections are all very interesting, but they do not affect the argument which I have adduced in support of the contention which was argued by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out the Clause. Since this matter has been raised, I will deal with it and I hope that I can deal with it without interruption. If I am provoked, I will provide the necessary replies. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members trying that sort of thing. I will say what I want to say. I am not informed about the intentions of the Opposition Front Bench. Let us have it out now. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that I did not start this quarrel. All I was doing was to support what I thought was a reasonable argument to reduce the Tobacco Duty.
I understand that we are still a democracy, in spite of the desire of some people to prohibit some of us from expressing an opinion. [Interruption.] It simply will not work. I want to express my opinion and I intend to state it. I did not intend to speak at any length. I was not aware of the opinions of the Opposition Front Bench. I waited to see whether someone on the Opposition Front Bench would get up to speak, and in fact I asked some of my hon. Friends beside me, "Why does not someone speak from our Front Bench?"
I thought that it was my party's opinion that the increase in the tobacco tax was an imposition. I found an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the provision of cheap tobacco to old-age pensioners, which I willingly support, but which has nothing to do with the general question of the effect of the tax on the ordinary smokers of cigarettes, tobacco and cigars. It was on their behalf that I ventured to make my protest. If a more emphatic protest is to be made later, I shall be glad to hear it and to support it, but I was not aware that it was coming.
I repeat that I cannot see why it is necessary for the Chancellor to impose this tax at a time when our finances are in a state of flux and it is difficult to see what will happen to the country's economic position over the next twelve months, or two or three years, but when


we are certainly not in a precarious financial position. Everyone in the Committee would have supported an increase in taxation, derived from any source, if that had been our position. However, in the circumstances, I support the hon. Member for Kidderminster, much as I am reluctant to do so, if for no other reason than that he has produced substantial arguments which appeal to what intelligence I possess.
I support him, but I make it clear that I do not enter a fight of this kind unless I go all the way. I do not care for starting a fight and then running away. One should be beware of entrance to a quarrel, but, once having entered it, one should go all the way. I agree with Shakespeare in that regard—[Laughter]— although I agree that he did not consult me before putting that thought in writing. It is no use threatening the Chancellor and indulging in tactics of this sort if at the last minute one is to refuse to go into the Division Lobby.
6.45 p.m.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster means business. The Government will not resign if they lose the battle on this issue, and there is no reason why they should. I am one of those who believe that the Government should not resign except on losing a vote of censure. That is the democratic method. I do not expect them to resign on this issue if they are defeated. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support the hon. Member for Kidderminster if they believe that this is an imposition on smokers.

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already explained, during the Budget and on Second Reading of the Bill, why it was necessary to provide for a very small net increase in taxation and, in particular, why tobacco was selected. When he moved this Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked me to answer a particular point with which, as he put it, he had dealt in an individual and unique manner. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I do precisely that.
Before doing so, perhaps I can assure the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinvvell) that if I limit my remarks to the subject of slot machines, I can certainly unreservedly accept, on behalf

of my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that his habits are neither dirty nor irrational.
I appreciate that the problem posed by my hon. Friend is a real problem, I do not wish to minimise it, but merely to try to give some idea of its extent. It may be that some slot machines cannot be adapted, but many thousands of them can be converted quite simply. As my hon. Friend will know, most of the slot machines with which we are concerned are designed to supply packets of 10 cigarettes at the standard price.
If some machines cannot be adapted to take 2s. 1d. and to give ½d. change, there is another method of dealing with the difficulty. I understand that the Imperial Tobacco Company, which produces the bulk of the cigarettes which are sold in the United Kingdom, has said that it does not propose to supply packets of cigarettes containing only nine cigarettes, which would be one answer to the problem. It has suggested that machines which cannot be converted could be stocked with filter tipped cigarettes at the new price of 1s. 9d. for 10. In that event, the machines could easily be altered to give 3d. change, 2s. having been inserted.
I realise that that is not the sort of answer which is wholly desirable, but it is fair to point out that in the case of the limited number of machines which cannot be converted in any circumstances there is an alternative which is worth consideration and which is being considered by the trade.
My hon. Friend referred to the tax loss. He said that the Treasury would pay 50 per cent. on Income Tax and Profits Tax resulting from the scrapping of some of these machines.

Mr. Nabarro: No. I must pull up the hon. Gentleman at once. I said that the Treasury would lose 51¼ per cent. as a result of the diminution of profit in respect of machines to be altered. Where the machines have to be scrapped, the total sum in respect of obsolescence allowance for Income Tax purposes—an entirely different matter, as the Economic Secretary should know—would be payable to the owner of the assets.

Mr. Barber: I did, in fact, take down what my hon. Friend said but, of course, I accept the wider remarks which he has now made.
I would point out that the observations which I was about to make apply equally to all that he said just now. The essential point is that this charge against direct taxation is, of course, a once-and-for-all loss to the Revenue whereas the increased yield from the Tobacco Duty is a continuing one. Whatever it is, I doubt whether it is really of the significance that my hon. Friend suggests.
My right hon. Friend explained why it was necessary to raise this duty this year. If this Amendment were accepted, it would result in a loss of revenue in this year of nearly £20 million. The result would be that either the revenue would have to be obtained from some other source—my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has declined to suggest an alternative source—or, secondly, we should have to abandon some of the concessions made by my right hon. Friend.
As to the difficulty concerning slot machines, I think it right that the Committee should keep the matter in perspective. I am told that only 2 per cent. of the cigarettes sold to the public are sold through slot machines. I am also told that many of the conversions are well under way. Despite the difficulties, I cannot believe that it would be right, regardless of fiscal requirements, to assume that the price of a packet of cigarettes must be kept permanently at or below 4s. for 20, or 2s. for 10, which is the logical consequence of my hon. Friend's argument. He referred to some of the difficulties, and he quoted at length from a telegram, which will be involved in converting machines and he also referred to the cost.
Before coming into the Chamber this afternoon, I was given the May issue of a trade journal which my hon. Friend may have seen, called Tobacco. As he has read at some length from the telegram which the trade association sent to my right hon. Friend, I think it relevant to inform the Committee that an article in it deals at length with the problem of modifying these machines, but does not say that scrapping is inevitable, although I realise that in some cases that may be so.
It states that work on the machines began immediately after the Budget. Within a fortnight, for example, the

Imperial Tobacco Company dealt with about 50 per cent. of the vendors, that is, the automatic vending machines which they issue to retailers. In general, some machines are fairly easily adjustable, but in others it will be necessary to put in an entirely new coin selector, which is a more expensive operation.
Then there is a reference to costs. The article states that the costs of adjustment vary with the type of machine. In some cases it will be between £8 and £10, according to the Automatic Vending Machine Association. In the more elaborate machines, the cost is likely to be considerably more than £10. In most cases where machines are loaned or rented by retailers the cost will be borne by the owners of the machines. Some machines will be adjusted by fitting an extra slot to take the odd ½d. and this is likely to cost about £8. I think that the article in the trade journal puts the matter in perspective.
Since the last increase in the Tobacco Duty, in 1956, the trade itself increased the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes by 1d. Even if we were to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment to increase the price of a packet of cigarettes by only 1d. on this occasion, it is certainly not inconceivable that at some time—I hope in the distant future—the trade may find it necessary to take action to increase the price of 20 cigarettes by 1d. If that were done, it would have precisely the same result as the proposal of my hon. Friend. That is the main reason why I ask my hon. Friend, in all seriousness, not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Fell: I think that we are getting a little confused. My hon. Friend says that there may come a time when the trade has to increase the price, but he is assuming that the duty on tobacco will go on at the same new rate all the time. Why is it not equally possible that if the manufacturers have to put up the price for one reason or another the tax may come down a little? Why does he assume that the tax will for ever be 3s. or more on a packet of cigarettes?

Mr. Barber: I was proceeding on the hypothesis which I said I hoped would be in the far distant future, that the trade might have to increase the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes by 1d. I explained that if the Amendment were


accepted—and I made no reference to the rate of duty, as I assumed that the rate of duty would be the same—this would be the inevitable consequence. Of course, I hope that it will be possible to reduce the duty in due course.
So I return to the main reason why this Amendment is not acceptable. Surely it would not be right for the Chancellor to abandon a proposal to raise £20 million in taxation, not on any fiscal grounds, not on any social grounds —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, this is a matter which we shall be discussing on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—but simply because a certain amount of difficulty will arise in converting some only of the slot machines, the total of which accounts for only 2 per cent. of the sale of cigarettes.

Mr. Jay: We shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment because we do not believe that there ought to be any increase in the Tobacco Duty. I think that the Economic Secretary gave a most lame and unconvincing reply to the main argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that this tax ought not to be increased. It is true that the Amendment proposes only half the increase, but since half a loaf is better than no bread, we shall certainly give it our support.
I have only two quarrels with the hon. Member for Kidderminster this evening. One is that he never supports his own proposals in the Division Lobby. We shall watch with interest today to see whether he shows more courage than the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth).

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman used the word "never", I refer him to the evening of Thursday, 7th April—[An HON. MEMBER: "Historic."] Not historic, one of many incidents when I was obliged to lead a large number of hon. Members opposite into the Lobby including the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). They all fell in behind me.

Mr. Jay: We hope that Wednesday, 18th May, will be a similar occasion. My only other quarrel with the hon. Gentleman is that I should not go quite as far as he in the abusive language which he used about the Chancellor. He has now accused the Chancellor of flatulence and turpitude.

Mr. Nabarro: I said "fiscal flatulence". I did not suggest that the Chancellor was guilty of physical flatulence.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay: And I said that I was not prepared to go as far as that. I accuse the Chancellor only of cynicism and opportunism in this tax imposition.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke, in a rather surprising speech, accused the Chancellor of mismanagement of the economy. Until a few weeks ago the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to an important economic Department. No doubt it was because he regards the Chancellor as mismanaging the economy that he resigned.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I have not resigned from anything.

Hon. Members: He got the sack.

Mr. Jay: I do not know whether the hon. Member means that he has been sacked or that he still occupies his post. If he is still there, his attack on the Chancellor is even more interesting, and we must entirely accept his accusation of mismanagement of the economy by the Chancellor.

Mr. Freeth: Perhaps I may make the matter clear. I have not been Parliamentary Private Secretary to an economics Minister since immediately after the last election. I am Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—and the Ministry of Education is not an economics Department.

Mr. Jay: Even so, the hon. Member's criticisms provide interesting evidence of the real feelings of hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster accused the Chancellor of reducing the tax on beer a year ago, before the election, and raising it on tobacco afterwards. This accusation has never been answered. Is it really coincidence that the tax on beer went down before the election and up on cigarettes afterwards? We have had no answer to that question—certainly not from the Economic Secretary today. I regard that as an example of cynicism.
Secondly, in this Finance Bill Tobacco Duty is increased and the duty on wines


goes down. This also seems to be an example of cynicism and—here I agree with the hon. Member—of mismanagement of the economy. We have had no explanation or defence of that piece of mismanagement. In addition, as we shall argue at greater length on the subsequent Amendment, it seems to us that this use of the Tobacco Duty is a specially cynical deal for the old-age pensioners, who had their tobacco tokens taken away only two years ago.
I turn now to the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster concerning slot machines. This is not our main objection to the increase in tax. Nevertheless, it did not seem to us that the Economic Secretary answered the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I do not know whether it is possible for manufacturers to reduce their prices by ½d. without losing the whole of their profit, but it would surely have been possible, and should have been possible, for the Treasury to work this out before taking this decision and to have made itself sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject of slot machines and the various multiples involved to have avoided inflicting this inconvenience on the industry.
The Customs and Excise authorities are in very close touch with the tobacco industry, and I should have thought that they would have known enough about it already to have been able to devise an increase which would not have given rise to the difficulty referred to. Everything the Economic Secretary said just now convinces me that the Treasury did not foresee this problem and made very little attempt to overcome it.

Mr. Barber: I want to make it clear that this kind of difficulty was foreseen. We considered it very sympathetically. Nevertheless, we did not feel that it overrode the other considerations which prompted us to increase the duty.

Mr. Jay: That merely amounts to the Economic Secretary saying that he knew that this increase would inflict great inconvenience upon everybody but that the Government nevertheless decided to go ahead with it.
For all the reasons I have given, and especially because we do not believe that the increase is justified, we shall divide in favour of the Amendment, and hope

to have the support of the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: I initiated this discussion, and the Amendment stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. There is no question of my burking the issue. I regard the Economic Secretary's reply as wholly unsatisfactory. I confine my arguments to the very narrow front of the grave practical problems arising from an inconvenient sum such as 2s. 0½d. for 10 cigarettes of a popular brand and 4s. 1d. for 20. In his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) my hon. Friend has admitted that the Treasury had thought about all these matters before increasing the Tobacco Duty by the sum stated in the Clause, and therefore knew that this huge sum of money was to be immobilised, in the value of slot machines or automatic vending machines all over the country. This simply makes the Chancellor's sins far, far worse.
It is not a question of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North dividing the Committee; I shall divide it. That is why I put down the Amendment. I invite as many of my hon. Friends as I can muster to join me, including those who made such sympathetic noises in the course of my speech. It is no good my looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth); he stigmatises the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as mismanagement of the economy but he will not support the first venture to put the Chancellor back on to the primrose path.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: That is exactly why I will not vote for the Amendment. It would put the Chancellor even more on the primrose path of dalliance to destruction.

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot agree with that at all.
I do not wish to widen the argument, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did, into general considerations of the increase in Tobacco Duty. In my view that question belongs to the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and I shall act appropriately then, for I have my own views on this matter in the general background of our economy today.
This Amendment is concerned with a narrow issue, and I appeal to as many as possible of my hon. Friends to join with me in the protest that I am making. I invite hon. Members of the Liberal Party to join with me. I am glad to see that the two present are nodding assent. Lastly, I make a powerful appeal to the whole of the Socialist Party to get "fell in" behind me and to vote the right way.
In case their is any danger of the Patronage Secretary misunderstanding my point of view on this important matter, I would tell him that I do so as a practical individual who dislikes the

Chancellor of the Exchequer—who once in his career was a businessman— deliberately causing heavy wastage of machinery and resources, and a huge wastage of the time and labours of skilled men, over months and months ahead, in altering machinery, the whole of which wastage could have been avoided had he acted with a little fiscal prescience in this matter.

Question put, That "three shillings and fourpence" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 179.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Allason, James
Gardner, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys, Walter H.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Barber, Anthony
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McAdden, Stephen


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gower, Raymond
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Beamish, Sir Tufton
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp;N. Ayrs)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bingham, R. M.
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.


Bossom, Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marlowe, Anthony


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas


Box, Donald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Brewis, John
Hay, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray


Brooman-White, R.
Hendry, Forbes
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mills, Stratton


Bullard, Denys
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus


Burden, F. A.
Hobson, John
Morgan, William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hocking, Philip N.
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Harmar


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Hopkins, Alan
Noble, Michael


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Collard, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jackson, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cordle, John
James, David
Partridge, E.


Costain, A. P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Coulson, J. M.
Jennings, J. C.
Peel, John


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Cunningham, Knox
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Curran, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Dance, James
Kerr, sir Hamilton
Pitman, I. J.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Pitt, Miss Edith


Deedes, W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Pott, Percivall


de Ferranti, Basil
Kirk, Peter
Powell, J. Enoch


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kitson, Timothy
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.


Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Eden, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.
Ramsden, James


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, Gilmour
Rawlinson, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rees, Hugh


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Freeth, Denzil
Lindsay, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian




Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Stodart, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Roots, William
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wall, Patrick


Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Ayle bury)
Watts, James


Russell, Ronald
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Whitelaw, William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Talbot, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Seymour, Leslie
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shaw, M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wise A. R


Shepherd, William
Teeling, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Smithers, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woollam, John


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turner, Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Speir, Rupert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Stevens, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Sharples.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles A.
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reynolds, G. W.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robertson, Sir David


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Boyden, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jeger, George
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, Thomas


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dempsey, James
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mayhew, Christopher
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert
Mellish, R. J.
Wade, Donald


Fell, Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Weltzman, David


Foot, Dingle
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Morris, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ginsburg, David
Mort, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grey, Charles
Nabarro, Gerald
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, W. E.



Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Probert.


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Sir William. May I raise a point of order with you about the conduct of the last Division?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr. Nabarro: It is this, Sir William. I initiated the last Amendment in connection with the Tobacco Duty and I made clear in the concluding stages of my speech on that Amendment that I wished to force a vote. Immediately the Question was put, and it was clear that there was a division of opinion in the Committee, I left my seat here and, as fast as my feet could carry me, I travelled to the Table to enter the Tellers for the Noes—a right hon. Gentleman opposite and myself. On my arrival at the Table I was greeted by the learned Clerk, who informed me that the Tellers for the Noes had already been entered, namely, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), Both of them are Opposition Whips.
I conceive that in certain circumstances it is of substantial political importance as to who are the Tellers in a particular Division, and as I initiated this Amendment and got to the Table as fast as I could get there, can you, Sir William, please inform me on what grounds the choice of Tellers—namely, the hon. Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Aberdare—was made and why, as I initiated this Amendment and was supported by a right hon. Gentleman opposite who had agreed to tell with me—I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is now nodding assent—we were precluded from acting as Tellers, especially having regard to the fact that two Tellers— [Interruption.] No, I did not want someone who knew the job. I can line up at the Table much more smartly than those two hon. Gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] May I complete my point of order, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that I am sufficiently seized of the hon. Member's point. I sympathise with his feelings in the matter, but I take full responsibility for what I did. I called for Tellers. Tellers for the Ayes were handed in and Tellers for the Noes were handed in. It so happened that

the Tellers for the Noes were two hon. Members both of whom sit on the Opposition Front Bench. It is normal for that to be the case. I accepted those names, the Division took place and it was an orderly Division.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I would not wish you to think that I am casting any reflection at all on the conduct of the Chair. What I am endeavouring to bring to your attention is the manifest unfairness of the situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Yes, the unfairness of the situation. I cannot go from my seat on these benches to the Table as fast as an hon. Gentleman sitting where the hon. Member for Aberdare and the hon. Member for Loughborough were sitting. The hon. Member for Aberdare had two names on a piece of paper which he put on the Table immediately the voices were collected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is of political significance that I should be a Teller for my own Amendment. That is "why not".
I represent to you, Sir William, that this system is extremely unfair. I shall write to Mr. Speaker about it tomorrow.

Mr. Ross: Why not tonight?

Mr. Nabarro: Because I shall be engaged in making further speeches about the Tobacco Duty. I shall write to Mr. Speaker tomorrow, complaining, and I shall endeavour to have an appropriate entry made in the Standing Orders.

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever may happen in the future will be dealt with in the future, but the point of order raised by the hon. Member relating to the recent Division has been dealt with and I think that the Committee should now proceed to discuss the next Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I came into the Chamber as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was raising his point of order, which concerns me to some extent. May I explain that what happened was that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had tabled an Amendment which could only be described as an unofficial Amendment. He asked if I would tell with him and


I agreed. I make no apology to anyone for that. It is constitutional in respect of an unofficial Amendment.
It transpired that at the behest of the Opposition Front Bench we were to support the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) intimated that we should support the Amendment. When I asked what was the position I was told by one of my hon. Friends who is a Whip that we were going to put in Tellers. I make no complaint; it was understood that it was an unofficial Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: I heard what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not recognise in it any point of order for me to deal with.

Mr. Cronin: I have some responsibility in this matter in that I handed in the names of the Tellers for the Noes. I should mention the reason I did so, so that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may realise that no discourtesy was intended towards him at all. The hon. Member for Kidderminster had announced several times in his speech that he would lead the Opposition through the Division Lobby and I did not see how he could do that and be a Teller at the same time. [Laughter.]

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I think it time that the Committee discussed the next Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at the end to insert:
Provided that the Treasury may by regulations provide for mitigating, in the case of pensioners satisfying the conditions of the regulations (whether as to age, class of pension or otherwise), the effect of the increase in the retail price of tobacco occasioned by this subsection, for making up, out of sums received by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on account of customs duties, the deficiency in the price received by persons supplying pensioners with tobacco in pursuance of the regulations and for purposes incidental and supplementary to the foregoing.
It may be convenient if with this Amendment we discuss the next Amendment in line 24, at the end to insert:
(3) In this section the expression "pensioner " means a person to whom a pension has been awarded under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, the National Insurance Act, 1946, or any corresponding enactment for the time being in force in Northern Ireland.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that that would be convenient.

Mr. Houghton: This is a proposition to enable the Treasury to make regulations in the case of pensioners for mitigating the effect of the increase in the retail price of tobacco. In the debate on the previous Amendment the Committee was reminded on a number of occasions of the effect of the increases in taxation. There is an increase in the price of twenty cigarettes of a popular brand from 3s. l1d. to 4s. 1d. and an increase of perhaps l½d. to 2d. an ounce on pipe tobacco. Reference was made to the weight of taxation on tobacco at the present time. I understand that out of the price of 4s. 1d. for twenty cigarettes of a popular brand not less than 3s. 0½d. comprises taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred to the enormous sum which the Revenue now collects from the tax on tobacco—nearly £830 million.
7.30 p.m.
The Committee may ask whether the Amendment means that it will be necessary to reintroduce the Tobacco Duty relief concession given to pensioners until its withdrawal in 1958. The answer is that it may be and probably will be so. I recall what happened between 1947 and 1958 on this matter. From 1947 to 1958 a special concession was given to pensioners of an exemption from additional tax levied in 1947, the cash value of which for a single pensioner was 2s. 4d. a week and, for a married couple, 4s. 8d. In 1958, when the basic pension scales were increased, the Government withdrew that concession.
When the retirement pension for a single person was increased by 10s., from 40s. to 50s. a week, the Tobacco Duty relief concession, the cash equivalent of which was 2s. 4d. a week, was withdrawn. When the standard pension rate was increased by 15s. from 65s. to 80s. for a married couple, the relief concession, whether for one pensioner or two, was also withdrawn. They had had the benefit of that concession on the tobacco tax for eleven years, mitigating very substantially the burden of the increased taxation on tobacco during that period.
We questioned very sharply indeed the justice of withdrawing this concession


at the time of the increase in the pension rates in 1958, but it was withdrawn. The question now is, would that system have to be reintroduced to give effect to this Amendment? It would probably be necessary to do something on similar lines, at all events, to give effect to the Amendment, although the Amendment itself does not prescribe any method by which it should be done.
The next question is whether it would mean re-erecting the apparatus which existed from 1947 to 1958 or, if some other elaborate administrative action is needed in order to give effect to this Amendment, would that be justified for what may appear superficially to be quite small increases in price? We on these benches believe that anything is justified to protect the standard of living of the pensioners, which is already too low. We are resolved to defend the pensioners from any erosion, however small, of their existing standards. We believe, therefore, that our Amendment is justified because of the imposition of this extra burden on the already too slender resources of old-age pensioners.
We heard from the Economic Secretary in the course of the last debate that this increase would bring the Exchequer very nearly £20 million a year, which is four times as much extra duty as will come to the Revenue from the Profits Tax this year and almost equivalent to the amount of Profits Tax levied in this Bill which will come to the Exchequer in a full year. It is, therefore, the most significant impost of extra taxation in the Bill. It is designed to curb the purchasing power of a very large section of people, because whatever they spend on tobacco the more tax they will pay and the less they will have to spend on other things. That seems to be the economic theory behind this increase in tax.
A few moments ago the Economic Secretary, when pressed to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), said that a loss of nearly £20 million of increased taxation would involve either some compensating increases in taxation elsewhere, or perhaps render the Chancellor unable to make the concessions on taxation elsewhere in the Bill. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:

It follows from my assessment of the economic outlook that I must raise at least sufficient additional revenue to cover the cost of these concessions, and, indeed, rather more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1960: Vol. 621, c. 63.]
He then passed straight to his proposals to increase the Tobacco Duty. So this duty has both an economic and a fiscal purpose, economic because of the general climate in which the Chancellor introduced his Budget, leading him to conclude that restraint on demand was desirable, and fiscal because he needed compensating taxation to reimburse the Exchequer for the concessions being made elsewhere in the Bill. The Chancellor presumably intends the economic purpose of the increase in tax to apply to old-age pensioners as well as to the rest of the community.
The purpose of the Amendment is to contract out of this increase, to contract out of this purchasing squeeze, old-age pensioners, on whom we believe it is an oppressive and additional burden. This tax is a deliberate increase in the cost of living. We are against that in general, and even more against it in the particular context of old-age pensioners. There are about 5 million retirement and non-contributory old-age pensioners who would benefit under the Amendment. Without it they will contribute a substantial proportion of the total extra tax if they continue—as many of them may not be able to afford to do—the same level of consumption of tobacco. We believe that to be unjust and we seek to relieve them of it.
A question which may also be asked is, what amount per head in Tobacco Duty relief should be given under this Amendment? We have not fixed an amount. Previously it was 2s. 4d. a week in cash equivalent, but we are now dealing with the mitigation of the extra tax proposed in Clause 5 and not with events which have gone before. It may be that l0d. or 1s. a week is a reasonable concession to give to old-age pensioners who would apply for it under the conditions under which the concession would be likely to be operated.
Is it worth all this trouble to re-erect this scheme in order to achieve this purpose? We believe that it is, and if the Chancellor does not, then we suggest that there is another remedy, which his


right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance can take in the debate on Friday. We have seen from the newspapers that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was called to a Cabinet meeting this week. Whether it was to decide whether he or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor should meet our objections in this matter, or whether it was to decide that nothing should be done on either count, we shall not know until the end of the week, but if the Chancellor tells the Committee that this grievance can be met in another way and that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will deal with it on Friday, then I am sure that I can persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to permit the withdrawal of the Amendment. Failing such an assurance, we shall fight every inch of the way.
I hope it will not be said that, although there is an increase in the Tobacco Duty affecting old-age pensioners this year, reliefs were given to them last year or elsewhere which offset the addition which they will have to pay for their tobacco and cigarettes. It is true that last year there was a reduction in the beer tax and in the price of beer, but it is no reply to us to say that the old-age pensioners' beer is cheaper this year than last. And surely no one suggests that in the Bill we are to make their port and sherry cheaper. Apparently even the removal of the Entertainments Duty will not make cinema seats any cheaper, and yet the additional tax on tobacco is to some extent necessary in order to reimburse the Exchequer for the removal of the Entertainments Duty, which will bring no benefit to the consumers, including the old-age pensioners. None would suggest that the old-age pensioners' game of solo may be cheaper by the removal of the tax on playing cards.
The truth is that some of the concessions given in the Bill are of doubtful value to the consumer in more directions than one. In any case, any of these suggestions would be merely the miserable accountancy of cheeseparers, because what small concessions have been given to old-age pensioners are welcome and necessary and what additional burdens are imposed on them are unwelcome and hurtful, however small they may be.
We therefore must take a stand here. It was a particularly heartless addition to taxation to select a commodity from which many old people get a good deal of solace, comfort and enjoyment. That was recognised in 1947 when, for urgent economic reasons at the time, the Labour Chancellor increased the Tobacco Duty and at the same time introduced the Tobacco Duty relief arrangements to which I have referred.
7.45 p.m.
I admit straight away that not all retirement pensioners are poor. Bearing in mind what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), it is also necessary to acknowledge that not all poor people are retirement pensioners. But I am sure that the Committee agrees that the old-age pensioners are not only a large and clearly defined group in the community, which makes the administration of a concession of this kind possible, but, on the whole, represent the poorest sections of the community. The fact that one-fifth of them receive National Assistance is clear proof of that.
The pension is inadequate. I hope that there will be no dispute about that. But what it should be and what steps should be taken about it is not a matter for debate on the Amendment. We hope, however, that we shall have sufficient response from the Chancellor to send some message of cheer to the old-age pensioners who will have and are having this increase in tax to bear. Have we to wait until the Chancellor himself retires before there is any conviction on the Conservative benches about the inadequacy of the retirement pension? Must he leave and live on 50s. a week?

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far outside the provisions of his Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: No Sir. I had got just as far as the Chancellor and I was about to leave him.
It is the inadequacy of the pension which makes our insistence on this Amendment stronger. If the pension were adequate we should not be debating the pennies on tobacco, even though they arose from a tax with which we did not agree. But these millions of people are still making their budgets in pence, and in a society which is beginning to


call itself affluent and about which other political slogans have been used until we are a little tired of them, there is this large section of the community which is laying out its money each week literally in pence. An addition to their expenditure in terms of pence is, therefore, a serious matter. Because we believe that it is a serious matter, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not hesitate to press the Amendment to a Division.
I hope that the Chancellor, whose attendance during the debate we welcome, will find some means of mitigating this additional tax for those covered by the Amendment. Unless he does so, we on these benches will be more than disappointed and we shall be all the more angry that this Clause imposing additional taxation in this way is before us.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in the course of his moderate and reasoned speech, said that not all retirement pensioners are poor. He could equally truthfully have said that not all retirement pensioners are smokers. That is of some importance when we consider this fairly narrow Amendment.
I do not dissent from the spirit in which he moved the Amendment, but I think that its implementation in all circumstances would be undesirable. By implication he compared the present increase in taxation with the very much larger increase in the Tobacco Duty which took place under the Labour Government about thirteen years ago, but he will recall that that was on a totally different scale and at a time when apparently there was no feasible chance of an early increase in the rates of basic retirement pension.
Indeed, in the lifetime of that Government there was for many pensioners no subsequent increase between 1947 and 1951. For others there was an increase of merely 2s. 6d. a week. Therefore, that rather small concession was perhaps of great importance to them at that time. It was admitted, even by those who thoughtfully, and perhaps in the circumstances considerately, brought the concession in, that in some ways it was an unfair concession because it gave a benefit only to some pensioners and not to others.
A return to that sort of concession today might be regarded, even by some pensioners, with foreboding. It is so easy to say that anyone who would oppose this modest concession is hard hearted. I certainly like concessions given by private people in the nature of cheaper tickets to go into football matches, and so on, but when it comes to administration by the State, ultimately the most desirable thing is an increase in the basic pension. I cannot develop that aspect.

Hon. Members: Why not?

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going rather wider than the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: Yes. I would be out of order in developing that aspect.
The hon. Member for Sowerby also pointed out that one-fifth of the people for whom the concession is designed are in receipt of National Assistance. I remind him that a much larger number of people are now in receipt of National Assistance than a year ago. This is because of deliberate Government policy, which was designed to increase the real standard of those people who are in receipt of that kind of assistance and also, by increasing the disregards, to enlarge the number of people who receive it.
This sort of concession might be regarded as somewhat retrograde, as it would not perpetuate but revive a concession which formerly obtained which was in some measure unfair. If the concession were reintroduced at this stage, it might be regarded by pensioners with foreboding, as an indication that they were to get no increase in the basic rate for three or four years. They did not receive an increase in the three or four years which followed the concession of 1947. That would be an unhappy picture for them to face.
I have every confidence that they will not have to wait for anything like that time, or even a small proportion of that amount of time, before they receive a concession similar to that which has been already given to those in receipt of National Assistance. For those reasons, while I can sympathise with the object of the Amendment, I do not think that it would be advisable for my right hon. Friend to accept it.

Mr. Tom Brown: In the concluding part of his speech, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that he had sympathy with the two Amendments. I remind him now, as I have often reminded privately and in public, that we have a saying in Lancashire, "Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. It is very sharp". Therefore, I expect that a manifestation of the hon. Member's sympathy will be expressed by his vote in the Division Lobby.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, the object of the two Amendments is to mitigate the effect of the increased Tobacco Duty on old-age pensioners and those who, unfortunately, happen to be in the lower income groups. That is the specific objective of the two Amendments. If there had been no increase in the Tobacco Duty, these Amendments would not have appeared on the Notice Paper.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his Budget in 1959, I used a Lancashire word. I said that he was "skinny". I did not mean skinny physically. I meant that in the application of his generosity he had been skinny towards old-age pensioners and those in the lower income groups. On this occasion, I must use another Lancashire word. He is very harsh. That is the word we use in Lancashire to describe a situation when people are withdrawing something, or holding something back which should be given. They are described as harsh. I leave it at that.
I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what was contained in the Gracious Speech, delivered in November, 1959. He will recall this, because it has been mentioned several times. It was said that the old people and those in the lower income group would have the care and attention of Her Majesty's Government. That promise was made. Since the Gracious Speech was delivered nothing has been done for the old-age pensioners. Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that it is about time that something was done? A great responsibility rests upon him and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. They cannot escape it. It is their duty to act in accordance with what was laid down in the Gracious Speech.
There lived in this country many years ago a very famous preacher and philosopher named the Rev. Charles Kingsley. When there was a condemnation of those who smoked, he said that tobacco and the smoking of tobacco was a hungry man's food, a thirsty man's drink, a lonely man's companion, a cold man's fire, and the finest weed that grew under the canopy of Heaven.
The question before us is not whether tobacco smoking is a bad habit or a good habit. It is to what extent we can help those who have reached the eventide of their life. It is on their behalf that I make my special plea, joining hands with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, that we should do something for the old folks in the eventide of their life. We should make it easy, more pleasant and more enjoyable for them.
The people for whom I plead are those who, by their activities in their various vocations in the years which lie behind them, played their part in building the prosperity that this country now enjoys. They did this by profound loyalty, deep devotion, and courage. They helped in no small way. I have said this before and I do not apologise for repeating it. They helped in no small way to enable this nation to become one of the greatest nations for its size in the whole world.
A study of the pages of history and an examination of our political, industrial and social background, with all our difficulties, will show that the people now in receipt of pensions played their part nobly and well, and that they are entitled to consideration at the hands of the Government. For what they have done for OUT industry and commerce they are entitled to any help that the Government can afford to give—and the Government can afford to give this help.
8.0 p.m.
Surely, we will not deny the old folk some solace in their solitude. Let the Committee and the Chancellor remember that the old-age pensioners and those in the lower income groups live in loneliness, which is a terrible thing. I do not say that this concession would completely alleviate their loneliness, but it would go some way to help them. If, by enabling them to have a pipe of tobacco, or a cigarette, we can alleviate


that loneliness let us do it, and let us not be so niggardly in our approach.
I have a number of social welfare clubs in my constituency—I shall have the pleasure attending the opening of one in a few days' time. I visit these clubs occasionally, and I take with me a few pipes and a little extra tobacco. I am always amazed at the psychological effect of those small gifts on the old people. Nothing gives them more pleasure than that extra tobacco, not because it comes from their Member but because it is a little extra over and above what they can afford to buy with their meagre pension.
We are not asking for a lot. According to the prison regulations, even the prisoner who is serving a sentence for wrong-doing is allowed 1 oz. of tobacco a week, or, alternatively, 100 cigarettes a week. If those who have done wrong and are paying the penalty can have a concession of this kind, surely the same consideration can be shown by the Government to those of whom I speak. The Government claim these days to be days of prosperity and a high standard of life. I do not challenge that claim, but though there is an improvement in our standard of life there is also a depreciation of the standard of living of the old folks. Therefore, I say again, if those in our prisons are entitled to a concession, so are our old people and those in the lower income groups.
Hon. Members opposite say that these people should save on this and on that, but I suggest that no hon. Member would be able to provide much for tobacco out of such a meagre pension as theirs. It would not be wise for me—and I have no desire to do so—to recite to the Committee typical budgets of these old folk, but those of us who go among them know that there is conclusive evidence that they cannot afford to pay the increased price of tobacco.
It is interesting to examine how the Tobacco Duty has grown and the effect that it has had, not only on the old-age pensioners but on other people. It is now 300 years since the duty was first introduced, and the increase in it in those three centuries is staggering. It originated in 1660, when it was 2d. per 1b. In the early part of the eighteenth century it was raised to 6½d. In 1910, the figure was 3s. 8d.; in 1915, it was 5s. 6d.;

in 1917, 7s. 4d.—and when it was raised to 7s. 4d. there was such an outcry, not from the old-age pensioners—there were few if any then—but from the ordinary public that it was reduced to 6s. 5d.
From 1918 to 1926, the duty stood at 6s. 2d., and there was a slow but gradual increase until 1931, when it stood at 9s. 6d. per lb. In 1939, it was 11s. 6d.; in 1940, 17s. 6d.; in 1942, 29s. 6d.; in 1945, 38s. 8d.; and on 16th April, 1947, when a concession was made to old-age pensioners by the then right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, Mr. Dalton, as he then was, it stood at 54s. l0d. per lb. In 1948, the duty was raised to 58s. 2d., and on 17th April, 1956, it went to 61s. 2d. a lb.
Every time, without exception, the increase has hit the old-age pensioners and the people in the lower income groups. Before taking any step either to increase present taxation or to impose new taxes the Chancellor and his Treasury advisers should take into consideration what effect their action will have on the poorer sections of the community. I remember that When I was about 11 years old I would be sent for tobacco for my dear old dad. The tobacco had to be weighed, and it was weighed against 1d. weight. The 1d. weight was put on one end of the scale and the tobacco was put on the other end, and one got 1d. of tobacco. That was away back over 60 years ago, but these are things that stick in one's mind and cannot be erased. We cannot erase memories of past hardship. It seems to me that with all our development and evolution, with all our advances, things seem to get worse to worse for the people for whom I speak.
We must also remember the size of the family. Our family of old folks is increasing. In 1901, there were 1¾ million people over the ages of 60 and 65. Today, the figure has increased to over 5¼ million if not 5½ million, people of those ages. I do not suggest for a moment that they are all smokers, nor do I suggest that all of them cannot afford to pay the increase, but I do suggest that ways and means should be found by the Government to alleviate the suffering and hardship created by this increase in the Tobacco Duty.
May I briefly recite how this duty has increased since 1954–55? The net yield of the Tobacco Duty in 1954–55 was


£649,879,583. In 1960, it has risen to £788,723,000, and in 1961, the year to which the Budget and this Finance Bill relate, it will be £829 million, the highest figure ever reached in this country by the medium of the Tobacco Duty. I have a great respect for the Chancellor, who is a very human man, but I must say to him that the increase in the Tobacco Duty cannot be justified on any grounds whatever.
I will not suggest that the Chancellor ought to have adopted other methods of raising money, but surely he could have selected some other section of the community to get the revenue. This certainly cannot be justified, and I therefore appeal to the Chancellor to accept our Amendments, remembering the promise that was made in the Gracious Speech that our old folk and those in the lower income groups shall participate in the increased pros-perky and standard of life of the people.

Mr. Hunter: I want, briefly, to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and to appeal to the Chancellor to make this concession.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the previous debate, said that the Treasury had considered the automatic machines and the difficulties with such apparatus before the decision to increase the duty. I want to ask the Chancellor whether he considered the old-age pensioners.

Mr. Amory: indicated assent.

Mr. Hunter: The Chancellor nods. The old-age pensioners are not machines, but human beings, and I therefore hope that he will make this concession tonight.
The Amendment does not ask a lot from the Treasury, but this extra taxation does mean a lot to those in the lowest income scale, that is, the old-age pensioners mainly, whose pensions are supplemented by National Assistance. A penny on a packet of 10 cigarettes, 2d. on 20 or 3d. on 1 oz. of tobacco is a lot to those who live on a razor edge existence and have to balance every week a budget which is mainly concerned with food, with heat in the winter—and that is a big item—and in which cigarettes, or pipe

tobacco, naturally cannot have a very important part.
8.15 p.m.
For a man or a woman, who may be 70 or perhaps 80 years of age, and who for many years have been smokers, to have to give up the habit of smoking is a terrific break, especially when they are living alone, perhaps either as widow or widower, when cigarettes or a pipe of tobacco can be a great consolation to them. Therefore, I make an appeal to the Chancellor, This is not a "golden handshake" and has nothing to do with a gift of thousands of pounds to one individual. It would mean that the old-age pensioners, as they could under the arrangements previously made, could apply, if they are smokers, and receive a concession. I think the last concession was worth 2s. 4d. a week.
If the Chancellor agrees about the need for an increase in the retirement pension —and I know he is very human and that everyone in the Committee recognises that—surely he will also agree to make this concession. In almost every Budget a concession is generally made, perhaps on Income Tax allowances or on beer, and if the Chancellor is to make a concession this year during the Finance Bill debates, let him make it to the old-age pensioners. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take an extra 1d. on 10 cigarettes from the old-age pensioners, and 3d. oz. on tobacco, let him agree to revert to the lower tobacco tax in existence before his Budget was introduced. I make an earnest appeal to the Chancellor to make this concession tonight to the old people and so relieve them of the extra tobacco tax.

Mr. John Morris: I support the Amendment. Time after time we have discussed the problem of the old-age pensioners, and every time that I have addressed an old-age pensioners' rally, I have had to plead guilty and say that I had no news, no solace, and no hope for them at all. If the Chancellor accepted the two Amendments, he would be giving some alleviation to them in their problems today.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr, Gower), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber, words full of sympathy for the old-age pensioners, but his constituents, unfortunately, will


not know where he stands. He made some vague reference to the pensioners not having to wait for some relief, without saying whether he was in favour of the practical proposal contained in these Amendments. He cannot have it both ways. Either he is for supporting the Amendments and making a stand on behalf of the old-age pensioners, or he is against it.
Many of the old-age pensioners today, as the Chancellor knows, are living on National Assistance. The old-age pensioner has a weekly budget day. The Chancellor has an annual Budget Day. He deals in millions of pounds, but the weekly budget of the old-age pensioner is a budget of pence. I ask the Chancellor to have regard to the circumstances of the old-age pensioners today. The joys of old age do not increase, and one of the joys is that of tobacco. If the Amendments were accepted, they would give some consolation to the old-age pensioners. I therefore ask the Committee most sincerely to accept these Amendments in the light of the present terrible and pitiful plight of old-age pensioners.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I should like to intervene very briefly in the debate on the Amendments because of the arguments that have been produced by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and I do so particularly, although the hon. Member is not here at the moment, because I thought the Chancellor was nodding his head in approval of what he had heard put forward by his hon. Friend. I thought the Chancellor distinctly indicated his approval of the major argument put forward by the hon. Member.
First, the hon. Member for Barry put forward what I thought was a rather dangerous new doctrine, which I hope is not the sort of doctrine which the Chancellor will accept. He argued that because there are a considerable number of people who are poor and who are not old-age pensioners, that is in some peculiar way related to the Amendments which the Committee is discussing. Obviously, the implication of that argument and doctrine would be that we can at no time bring any relief to any section of the population unless at the very same time we bring relief to all other sections.
That, certainly, is absurd. In all social legislation, it is agreed by all people involved, and certainly by all social workers, that from time to time we may find that we can do something to help alleviate distress for one section of our people, but cannot do similar things immediately for everybody else.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Barry has just returned, because I should like to deal with another argument which he put forward. He said that it ought to be remembered that on a past occasion when a concession was made to old-age pensioners it was justified because there was no immediate increase in the pension itself, and there was not one for some time. In the absence of any specific knowledge which the hon. Gentleman may have received from the Chancellor or the Cabinet that an increase in the basic pension is impending, I should say that that is a very dangerous argument to use in this debate, because it means that the Committee is being asked to be stultified in a justified demand.
I did not hear anything in the hon. Gentleman's speech saying that the Amendments were unjustifiable. If we are to assume at any given moment when discussing an important and justifiable Amendment that because an increase may be pending in some unspecified future therefore we ought not to press the Amendment, then all the useful work of the Committee on matters of this kind will become impossible.

Mr. Gower: I made it perfectly clear that, whereas we on this side of the Committee have stated that the retirement pensioners should share in increasing prosperity, in 1947 or 1948, when an allowance was made for them, there was no feasible prospect of any increase in their pension, and there was not one for the remaining three or four years of the Labour Party's term of office for some pensioners and only 2s. 6d. for others.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Does not the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) remember that in the last debate on old-age pensions one of his hon. Friends—I think it was the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth)—said that it was a little early to do anything and that we should do it when the time was opportune? That


might mean in four years' time, before the next General Election.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not think that the hon. Member for Barry has answered my point at all. There does not seem to be any ability on his part to predict. What I am objecting to is the use of his argument that at some unspecified date in the future an increase in pensions may be pending, and that, therefore, it would be wrong for this Committee to give some immediate relief to a section of our people. That is an unjustifiable argument, and we should remove it from our minds in deciding how to vote on the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman referred—and so may other people in this debate, and I rather suspect that the Chancellor will when he replies to it—to the fact that not all old-age pensioners are smokers. That also seems to me a very dangerous social doctrine. We have a great deal of social legislation which is not always used by everybody at any given moment. I refer, for instance, to our health services.

Mrs. Slater: And education.

Mr. Mendelson: In any parallel case we have always used the argument that because not everybody may be making use of the service or benefiting by it that can never be a reason for not having it.
This is really very important. Let me give another example on not so vast a scale as the health services. I have been associated in my time, as I know many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been, with schemes to provide special travelling facilities for old-age pensioners, or people handicapped in some way—blind people, for instance. We have never accepted the doctrine, now being introduced by the back door, that because not every old-age pensioner is a smoker therefore there is no real case for the Amendment.
I am driven to the conclusion that unless the Chancellor can tonight give the Committee a very definite assurance —so definite that we can go back and say to our constituents who are old-age pensioners that we have received such an assurance officially in the name of the Cabinet—that an increase in the basic pension is about to be announced, or

that the Chancellor and his colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance have agreed in some other way to meet the point of this Amendment, there are no grounds on which the Chancellor and his hon. and right hon. Friends can refuse to support it. I still hope that such an announcement will be made, but if it is not made I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in saying that it is our duty to press the Amendment to a Division and, what is more, to make quite clear that the introduction of that kind of social doctrine ought to be denounced when it makes its appearance in Committee.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Amendment because the Clause is incomplete without it. It is not only incomplete but it is also unjust. The Clause is Olympian in its calm and stupid disregard of the conditions of British life, and it assumes that in Britain we are all equal in capital, income and comforts. It imposes 3s. 4d. tax on all smokers equally—indeed, on all people equally whether they be smokers or not. It ignores the fact that some people are rich and some are poor, some have mansions and some live in slums, some smoke and some do not, some have big incomes and some have small incomes. It ignores, indeed, the fact that old-age pensioners are very poor indeed.
These Amendments seek to rectify these omissions in the Clause. These Amendments are realistic. They seek in a very small way to do justice to a very small, a limited, class. The Amendments, as I say, are realistic, and I appeal to the Committee to support them on those grounds.
I shall not repeat the arguments which have been put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who moved the Amendment, and, indeed, toy other speakers. I approach the Clause and the Amendment from another angle. The purchasing power of the pensioners mentioned in the Amendment is very small. It should be remembered—it is not remembered by the draftsmen of the Clause, but it is remembered by the draftsmen of the Amendment—that the pensioners mentioned in the Amendment were the


wealth producers of yesterday, and it is right that they should be remembered now. The Amendments are an attempt in a realistic way to ease the life of the pensioners.
Not all people are addicted to smoking. I am not, for instance, though I would smoke the odd cigar on a ceremonial occasion once in six months. I am not putting forward my own addiction in this respect.
I shall not deal with the cold mathematics of it, which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), but I beg the Committee to realise that the Clause states:
Each of the rates of the duties of customs and excise on tobacco shall be increased by three shillings and fourpence per pound …
and makes no exception of any class in the community, however deserving or however small it may be.
To implement these Amendments would cost the State very little money, but it would mean a great deal in comforts for a very small class. The plight of that class is terrible. Its access to the amenities and comforts of life is small. The Chancellor realises that under his régime many wealthy people get the golden handshake, but the poor pensioner gets very little.
8.30 p.m.
These Amendments are a step in the right direction. Indeed, I go so far as to say that unless the Committee realises the facts of the situation and implements the Amendments it will be doing a disgraceful job of work. It is only right that these exceptions should be made, and I appeal to the Committee to pass the Amendments.

Mr. Ross: If he had been minded to satisfy and meet the complaints that have been made from this side of the Committee by accepting the Amendments, or by offering another way out by making an announcement of the kind which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) had in mind, I am sure that the Chancellor would have risen a long time ago. From experience of Finance Bills and of the habits of those who reply to debates on Amendments we can deduce that we shall get no satisfaction from the Chancellor.
We are trying to mitigate the effect on retirement pensioners of the increase in the tobacco tax, and not necessarily merely to the extent of the amount that is raised by the change which the Chancellor announced in his Budget. Is it right that we should do that? Is it right that old-age pensioners should have to bear this additional burden because, for some reason or other, in the handling of the nation's finances the economic situation has become rather precarious? In order to try to put things right and to tug at the reins, we have this additional tax on tobacco which has the result of imposing an additional cost of 1d. on ten cigarettes and 2d. on twenty and 3d. on an ounce of pipe tobacco.
Is it right that this should apply to the people who are specifically mentioned in the Amendments? Are we right in suggesting that the people who should not pay this penalty for national easy living should be the people who are not participating in that easy living— the old-age pensioners? I think that even the Chancellor would say that, if he could do it, he would prefer that old-age pensioners did not pay the additional tax on cigarettes and tobacco. If that is so, can he do it? We have a precedent. From 1951 to 1958 the party opposite was quite content to continue the tobacco concession. Indeed, on one occasion when there was an increase in the price of tobacco the concession was increased in value, and when it was withdrawn in 1958 it was worth 2s. 4d.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is still in the Chamber. He pins his faith on how good his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were to old-age pensioners, and with particular reference to those on National Assistance. When the pension was increased by 10s., that was a reason given for doing away with the concession of 2s. 4d. Those in the greatest need at that time, those on National Assistance, did not have an increase of 10s., but one of 5s. Therefore, the historic safeguards from the Front Bench opposite in respect of those in greatest need do not bear very much examination. When we are asked by the hon. Member for Barry to rely on some future beneficence from people who are known for their niggardliness I do not think that he will find many supporters on this side of the Committee.
We prefer to ask the Chancellor to reinstate a concession which should never have been taken away. Hon. Members should consider the injustice of it: port and sherry—cheap—and the tobacco tax which will affect the old-age pensioner. With all respect to what some hon. Members may think, old-age pensioners do not deluge themselves nightly with port and sherry. An old-age pensioner has £2s. 10s. a week. He will not be able to get very many packets of cigarettes at 4s. 1d. each with that.
In some of the changes in the spending pattern of old-age pensioners which are forced upon them by Government action —this is the second this week; last night the Minister of State, Board of Trade, defended a tariff proposal which would increase the price of imported tomatoes by 2d. per lb.—we cannot do very much to safeguard them. However, here we can safeguard the old-age pensioners by reinstating the concession which was accepted by the Conservatives for seven years. It would certainly help to mollify the feelings of not only old-age pensioners but people throughout the country whose reaction when the Budget was announced was, "Why is not something done for the old-age pensioners?". That was the instinctive and socially healthy reaction of the great mass of the people.
The Chancellor failed then. A man who realises he has made a mistake and recovers from it shows a tremendous amount of courage. We are told—I do not know with what truth—that the right hon. Gentleman will leave political life very soon. I invite him to seize this chance to enshrine himself in the hearts of the old-age pensioners. Actually, he has two chances, one tonight and another on Friday. Tonight he has the opportunity to insulate the old-age pensioners from the increase in the tobacco tax.
This is a serious matter for old-age pensioners. When men and women retire they face a considerable drop in income, but they cannot change the habits of a lifetime, and I do not think we should expect them to do so. Nevertheless, many of them have to accept a very considerable change in relation to their tobacco habits. They cling to what little they have left. Sixpence per week in respect of this increase means a lot to them.
While the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was speaking, many hon. Members opposite showed great sympathy and concern about the difficulties of the makers and users of automatic vending machines. Not many of those makers or the retailers will be on National Assistance as a result of what is done in the Budget, but many old-age pensioners will find life just that little bit more difficult with this additional impost.
Surely the Chancellor appreciates that our Amendment is right. He may say to us, "It is not very easy to do", and we shall suggest to him that it has been done before and could be done again. The only other argument is that it is not right to do it because there are among the old-age pensioners some who are not smokers. But it is only the smokers who are being hit by the tax. That is the logic of the answer to the hon. Member for Barry: only the smokers among the old-age pensioners will suffer additionally by this increase in tax. Our Amendment is addressed to this tax and to those people. There is nothing unfair in that.

Mr. Gower: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that when these concessions were in force Members were constantly asking for similar concessions for people who did not smoke but who bought sweets? When the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance decided to terminate that concession he did it because he felt that it would be better for all pensioners to get an equivalent money value. He therefore added to the increase which he proposed to bring in and so gave a larger increase to compensate for the loss of this concession to some pensioners.

Mr. Ross: I do not accept any of that argument. I do not accept the argument that it is wrong to adopt this Amendment because we would not have this concession for sweets. Discussing sweets would be out of order, but in any case there is no tax on them, so the question of an additional Government impost on them, causing hardship, does not arise.
I have already dealt with the adequacy of the additional pension. The increase for a man on National Assistance was 5s., but the Government took away 2s. 4d. and so gave a net increase of


2s. 8d. When Members opposite argue that they always help those who are poorest, they should reflect on what they did in 1958, because, by their own proclamations they are judged as having done something very wrong. What we suggest here is right and practical, and I hope that the Chancellor in this, his last. Budget will do something to endear himself, though belatedly, to the old-age pensioners.

Mr. Cronin: I express my approbation of the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). As he comes from north of the Tweed, he has particular experience of the difficult and miserable conditions of old-age pensioners, and unemployment in Scotland is substantially worse than in England.
The main aspect of the Amendment is that it is uncommon in that it gives the Committee an opportunity to do something which is largely for people who are in really straitened circumstances. Usually, Amendments to the Finance Bill refer to questions of Income Tax which very many people pay. Others deal with Purchase Tax and Excise duty and have a diffuse effect over the whole population. Here, however, the Committee has an opportunity to pass an Amendment which affects, almost exclusively, people who are in really difficult and unhappy circumstances. For that reason the Chancellor should give it sympathetic attention.
I shall attempt a little clairvoyance and prophesy what the Chancellor will say in reply. First, he will say that during the years 1947 to 1957 there were considerable practical difficulties when this scheme was administered. That is a fair point. During that period there were difficulties, for instance, when retirement pensioners were in hospital for long periods. There were complaints that pensioners, people suffering industrial injuries, post office workers, widows, retired policemen and various other categories, were excluded from the scheme, who could, on grounds of equity, normally have been considered to be suitable candidates. But we have drafted this Amendment in such a way that it gives the Chancellor a free hand to introduce any regulations he likes to fit the scheme to all possible circumstances. We do not confine him even to the Amend-

ment. If he wishes to introduce an Amendment himself on Report, we shall be very happy to accept it, provided that it satisfies the principle which we have in mind.
8.45 p.m.
The Chancellor may also say that this is intended to subsidise one kind of amenity, tobacco, and that there are some people who do not smoke and that it may be felt to have a rather unfair effect. Several hon. Members have already dealt with that argument. The Committee should bear in mind that when the Royal Assent was given to the National Insurance Act, 1958, retirement pensioners who were smokers were then deprived of their tobacco tokens to the value of 2s. 4d. a week, so that it was the smokers who then suffered. It seems to be no more than common justice that they should not receive some benefit.
The Chancellor may suggest that the benefits are rather small and may cause great administrative difficulty; but, if he says that, he will under-estimate the strength of feeling throughout the country about the need to improve the lot of retirement pensioners. I am sure that Post Office officials would handle this work with pleasure and would not for a moment grudge any extra work which they have to do to see that these old-age pensioners got their tokens.
This is undoubtedly a comparatively small concession, but we would be happy to withdraw the Amendments in to to if we had some assurance from the Chancellor that an equivalent concession was to be made to retirement pensioners in the immediate future. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee know that the plight of the vast majority of retirement pensioners is so miserable and is such an affront to our present civilisation that any concession, however small, is better than nothing. The smallness of the concession is an argument in its favour, because it will cost the Treasury very little.
It should be remembered that when my noble Friend, Lord Dalton, introduced this scheme in 1947, the tobacco tax was not as high as it now is and the scheme was received with general approbation. Lord Crookshank, who was handling the matter from the Front Bench for the then Conservative Opposition, gave the


scheme the fullest possible approbation and said:
We are very willing, of course, that this Clause should be read a Second time".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2338.]
He gave unqualified approval and that was at a time not only when the Tobacco Duty was less than it now is, but when retirement pensioners had a pension which, in comparison with the whole cost of living, was higher than it is now. If the Chancellor rejects the Amendment, will he say what has been the specific change in the views of the Government supporters since that time? What is the difference between now and 1947? Have hon. Members opposite become more hard-hearted?
I do not think that the Chancellor himself is hard-hearted. I think that he is a sympathetic person. One sees rumors in the Press that he is shortly to cease to be Chancellor. Some of us may feel some slight symptoms of dismay at that prospect.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): We cannot discuss the Chancellor's future prospects on this Amendment.

Mr. Cronin: The prospects of retirement pensioners are bound up with the question of who is the Chancellor. If we have a Chancellor—

The Temporary Chairman: There is only one Chancellor who can give a concession on this Amendment.

Mr. Cronin: I do not want to delay the Committee and I would not think of questioning a Ruling from the Chair. I would suggest to the Chancellor that, although we think that he is a person of good intentions, good intentions are not enough. We want him to take some really effective action, and I would ask him carefully to bear in mind the traditional terminus of the road which is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I think that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have deployed almost every conceivable argument in an effort to persuade the Chancellor and the Government to accept the Amendment. I would add my pressure from the very human and personal angle of how it affects individual old-age pensioners.
I had the privilege for several years of being warden of an old-age pensioners' hostel and of having a number of old people under my care. During that period it became increasingly obvious that the amount of enjoyment left to them in the evening of their Eves was very small indeed. As they reached the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s, so the area of their enjoyment gradually receded.
I remember old gentlemen of 79, 80 and 81 whose main consolation and enjoyment in life was a pipe of "'baccy". I am not pleading in terms of millions or, like the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in terms of statistics and £ s. d., but in terms of the individuals to whom this Amendment, if the Chancellor can see his way to accept it, will mean so much towards the end of their lives. These are people who have given their life and service to the community.
I am not a smoker. My experience with medical practitioners has convinced me of the very strong relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The old-age pensioners whom I served were East Londoners who refused to leave East London during the blitz. They had lived in Stepney all their lives and they wanted to remain in their own homes irrespective of enemy action. If old gentlemen wish to perpetuate their smoking I think that just as the heroes of the last war were permitted to die in their homes, so old-age pensioners should be permitted to smoke their pipes in peace.
One of my pensioners, who was 79, was a bachelor. His first girl friend was run over by a horse tram and he was twice jilted after that, but he was a cheerful old boy who found great pleasure in his little bit of tobacco which some of us helped to provide for him. I hope that the Chancellor will take on the rôle of fairy godmother in this instance. It is a hard story which we put to him, and we ask him to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Amory: This is the first time that I have been referred to as a potential fairy godmother.
The tone of the discussion that we have had is exactly what it should have been on a matter of this kind, quiet, objective and serious. I found the speech of


the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who has just left the Chamber, as attractive as I always do. Last year he called me "skinny" and this year he has called me "harsh," two Lancashire terms at which I take no offence. It may be that he is right. It may be that any Chancellor justifies both those terms.
I wish that I could have accepted the Amendment, but I really do believe that it would not be a good way of helping the old people. The effect would be to restore a scheme of concessions to old-age pensioners that was introduced in 1947 and ended in 1957. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that 5 million people stood to gain. That would be so only if they were all habitual smokers; otherwise, the number would be just under 3 million.
But it is not upon the comparative smallness of the number that I base my case. It is worth reminding the Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) did, that this scheme was introduced to mitigate a quite unprecedentedly heavy increase in the Tobacco Duty, amounting to 1s. on a packet of 20 cigarettes. The Government of the day felt that this increase was so sharp that it would bear unfairly upon old-age pensioners, and a scheme was introduced to provide for the issue of tokens, to a value of 2s. at that time, to certain specified classes of pensioners.
Looking back at the debate that took place it is difficult to believe that had the 1947 increase in duty been no more than 2d. a packet the scheme would ever have been invented. I say this because the scheme was open to serious objections in principle, as became evident fairly soon after it had been introduced. It is admitted to have been not wholly fair in its application, because it created anomalies as between one pensioner and another and as between one smoker and another. Those anomalies seem to have been felt. Some classes of pensioner were ineligible for the concession. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) who said that the Amendment went wider, because it provided for regulations. I think he will find that it does not go wider than the same classes of pensioner that were covered by the previous scheme.
The concession gave a relative benefit to the pensioner who smoked which was not available to the non-smoker, and a relief to the smoker who was a pensioner in one of the eligible classes which did not extend to any other smoker, although his or her circumstances might be just as difficult as those of a pensioner, or even more so. Whatever we may think, all this led up to a general feeling of unfairness. The scheme was subject to constant criticisms from those who thought that their claims to other benefits were as great as those of the eligible pensioner.
I would add that the scheme was difficult to administer, although I do not want to put much weight upon that fact. That is not a wholly satisfactory reason for rejecting an Amendment. The main reason is based upon the experience that we had during the years when the scheme was in operation, when some who benefited and many who did not considered it not to have been a fair or successful scheme. It was also subject to a lot of abuse, because it was quite impossible to make sure that the tokens were used only for their proper purposes and only by the proper people.
Fundamentally, the weakness of the scheme was that it was unsound as a piece of social policy. It was in flat contradiction to the general principle that social benefits for the old should be provided in cash and not in kind. Experience has shown that that principle is sound. Individual tastes and requirements vary very widely, and I think it wrong—and something which inevitably leads to the kind of inequities which I have been describing—to provide social benefits by way of concessions in relation to specific commodities.
I believe that we are bound to run into trouble if we adopt that principle generally. It was particularly undesirable to make this departure from general policy on something which was not absolutely essential, although I agree that when one has been in the habit of smoking all one's adult life it is reasonable to think that people will want to continue that habit. I do not want to make much of that point.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson: Would the Chancellor not agree that it is also an important social principle that, because


the old-age pensioner faces such a drop in income when he becomes a pensioner compared with what he earned while he was at work, it is serious that he should also have to pay higher prices for something which he has been used to for many years?

Mr. Amory: I will say a word about higher prices, because there is no question but that higher prices bear more on the elderly than on any other section of the community.
When this concession was in force it gave rise to claims for similar relief on what people thought were still more essential and more universally used commodities, such as milk and tea. One thing would have led to another and if we had continued the principle we should have got into deeper trouble without providing the benefit to the elderly which would have been our object.
The policy of the present Government has been, first, to ease the position of pensioners by increasing their cash incomes, and, secondly, to do our utmost to hold steady the price level so that their real purchasing power may rise. The cost of living has been stable now for two years. We have no reason to be apologetic about our record on either of these two heads, and I am surprised at the way hon. Gentlemen from the opposite side of the Committee have spoken about what they referred to as the quite exceptionally hard position of old-age pensioners at the moment.
I do not want to go into this in detail, but the statistics are all against them if they are speaking relatively. This question arose at the General Election. The electorate gave a very sharp and clear answer on that, and that answer has been substantially repeated at the recent local elections.

Mrs. Slater: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to go to the old-age pensioners' conference next week and tell them what he has just told the Committee, that they are not suffering any hardship? He will then hear their answer.

Mr. Amory: I did not say that, and I hope that the hon. Lady will read what I said.
The facts which I have made clear whenever I have spoken on this subject in public can be illustrated by one or two figures. I think that this is relevant to the Amendment because of the observations of many hon. Gentlemen. One hon. Gentleman said that the General Election was held seven-and-a-half months ago. For the last five years of the Socialist Government nothing at all was done. During those five years the cost of living rose by 30 per cent.

Mr. Alfred Robens: It must be remembered that there was a substantial rise in the first year.

Mr. Amory: There was a tremendous rise in the first year after the war, and it would have been astonishing if the Government had not increased pensions. The sad thing was that almost from the moment they made the increase the value of it was eroded by rises in the cost of living.

Mr. Ross: Why did the spokesman for the Conservative Party tell us we had done it far too soon?

Mr. Amory: Done what far too soon?

Mr. Ross: Raised pensions, allowances, and these other welfare things.

Mr. Amory: Every remark made by members of this Government has been to the contrary, because it seemed incredible to them that the Socialist Government waited for so long before they finally increased the rate, and then they did it only for some pensions.
The figures relevant to the Amendment are that during the last five years of the Socialist Government the cost of living rose by 30 per cent., and the old-age pension increased by 15 per cent. Since 1951, the cost of living has risen by 32 per cent., and the basic old-age pension has been increased by 66 per cent. We have increased it three times and each time by more than the cost of living. Today, the pension for a single person buys 10s. l0d. worth of goods more than in 1951. The effect on the cost of living of the increase in the tobacco duty is taken into account when the National Assistance scales are fixed.
I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) got a little tangled up between direct and indirect taxation. He said


that in indirect taxation the income of individual taxpayers should be taken into account. That would be a new principle. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to the basic pension of 50s. and said that it would be difficult to provide many packets of cigarettes from that. We must remind ourselves that no one need live only on the old-age pension of 50s. The scheme pro-pounued in the Amendment involves a smaller amount than the original scheme, but were the concession made on strictly the same lines it would mean 4d. a week as opposed to the 2s. in the 1947 scheme.
The extension of this relatively small benefit on a narrowly selective basis would be open to all the objections of principle which I have described and all the objections of practice which became so apparent during the period in which the original concession was enforced. Therefore, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Robens: Naturally, the Chancellor would expect me to say that we are very disappointed at the reply that he has felt compelled to make, and he would be quite right. The debate has taken place quietly and with narrow objectivity. It is an indication of the greatness of Parliament that in dealing with a Finance Bill destined to raise nearly £6,000 million it can pause for a few hours to think in terms of pence for the old-age pensioners. I am only sorry that the Chancellor has been unable to do what I hoped that he would do. I was certain that he would reject this Amendment for many of the reasons he has given, but I hoped he would say that it was proposed to give an increase in the old-age pension, and the right hon. Gentleman has not done so. Perhaps that is the most disappointing thing about his speech.
The Chancellor has forgotten that before and during the General Election Ministers of the Crown said that the position of all old-age pensioners would continue to improve vis-à-vis the rest of the community: the standard of living of every one would be raised by the action of the Government. This was a very firm pledge. This evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not applied himself to the fact that the Budget has reduced the standard of

living of a large number of pensioners, but that is a fact that cannot be gainsaid.
When one considers those pensioners who smoke and are in receipt of public assistance, it is not that there is a reduction in their standard of living in relation to the things they eat, but there is a reduction in their standard of comfort and their happiness. I should have thought that the Chancellor would have taken the opportunity to say that it was not his intention to reduce the standard of the poorest of the population, those old-age pensioners subject to a means test and in receipt of public assistance.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: It is National Assistance.

Mr. Robens: Well, National Assistance. If the hon. Gentleman were in receipt of it he would not mind what it was called so long as he could get the few shillings to enable him to live.

Mr. McAdden: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that I have been on National Assistance? He has not.

Mr. Robens: It certainly is the case that I have not been on National Assistance.

Mr. McAdden: I have.

Mr. Robens: I should be very interested to know the circumstances under which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) was on National Assistance, but that is a matter for another day and I am not particularly interested in it just now. What surprises me is why he should sit on the benches opposite—

Mr. McAdden: If the right hon. Member will give way I shall tell him—

Mr. Robens: Probably his pockets have been very well lined since his change-over from one class to another.

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman, no matter who he may be, to make suggestions that an hon. Member on this side of the Committee has had his pockets so well lined that he is in a position to take a certain attitude and, by implication, to reflect that the views the hon. Member advocates in this Committee are dictated by the


way in which his pockets are lined? If the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has not the guts to give way, can you persuade him to do so?

The Chairman: It is in order to say that an hon. Member's pockets are well lined, but responsibility for the accuracy of that statement is for the hon. Member who makes it.

Mr. Robens: I am glad you support me, Sir Gordon. I now go back to what I was saying to the Chancellor when the hon. Member interrupted to tell us some of his life history.
What the Chancellor had done has meant that the poorest of the community, these old-age pensioners on a means test and National Assistance, have in fact had their standard of living reduced at a time when the Chancellor and his friends have been indicating that their prospects were going to be much brighter. He well knows that this was the only method open to us in order to draw attention to the peculiar position of the pensioner today and the effect of the Tobacco Duty on the old-age pensioner who smokes. We are well aware of the administrative difficulties which followed the introduction of tokens, but at least this gives the opportunity once again of having some statement from the Government on old-age pensions. It will give the old-age pensioners' annual conference a wonderful message of hope.
The Chancellor tonight is saying to the old-age pensioners, "There is nothing for you in the kitty. If you happen to smoke you will have to pay the same taxation as everyone who smokes, irrespective of their income". We regard this as mean and niggardly. It is outrageous and disgraceful—more broken pledges given to old-age pensioners at the General Election. We shall show our view of the way in which this matter has been treated by dividing the Committee.

Mr. McAdden: I am sorry to delay the proceedings of the Committee for a moment or two, but I cannot allow the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) to get away with some of the things that he has said. He has attempted to convey to the Committee that the only hon. Members who have any experience of the problems of working people in the country are those who sit

on his side of the Committee. That is an arrogant and unjustifiable assumption, especially when it comes from a director of one of the wealthiest concerns on this country, indulging in a considerable amount of retail trade from which the directors receive a considerable profit.

Mr. Robens: rose—

Mr. McAdden: I shall not give way, because the right hon. Member would not give way to me.

Mr. Robens: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. May I be informed of what company I am a director? I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. McAdden: I am sorry the right hon. Member wishes to dissociate himself from the very considerable income which he formerly derived, if he does not now derive it, from the co-operative society. If he suggests that that is not of some importance, I am sorry.
The point which I am trying to make is that pensioners of all kinds, who are worried about this issue, are divided into political parties. Conservatives smoke in exactly the same way as do Socialists, and all are concerned about this problem. I can understand the agitation which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to stir up on this issue, but the fact is that under a Conservative Government the purchasing power of the pension is considerably higher than it was in 1951.
Although right hon. and hon. Members opposite may take some comfort to themselves that during the life-time of the Socialist Government there was a concession for old-age pensioners in respect of tobacco, the fact is that the amount which the pensioner could spend on other things was considerably reduced, and it is only since Conservative Governments have been in power that these substantial advances have been made.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the work which he has done over the last few years, since he has been Chancellor, to maintain the cost of living at a steady level. That is the greatest good which can be done not only for the old-age pensioners but for all the people of the country. I should not have intervened had not the right hon. Gentleman, who was unwilling to


give way to me, made an unjustified attack upon me, which I now take the opportunity of rebutting. If he and his hon. Friends would only realise that the great majority of the people of this country are fed up with the class-war attitude which they seek to adopt, this country would be a better place in which to live.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I should be the last person in the world to engage in a dispute with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). Surely we do not need to inveigh against each other on account of our affluence; that is not the issue at stake. I am not concerned with defending my right hon. Friends, who are physically and mentally equipped to defend themselves against all comers and who require no assistance from me. But any accusation which is made against the integrity of my right hon. Friends will be emphatically rebutted by me. There is no occasion to indulge in personal accusations.
I confess that I have not listened to a substantial part of the debate. I popped In now and again, and the Chamber was so dull that I thought that the best thing to do was to retire. Having listened to some part of the debate, however, I want to pinpoint the vital issue. This was a concession enjoyed by the mass of old-age pensioners. There is no denying that, and I think the hon. Member for Southend, East will readily admit the truth of it. This was undoubtedly a beneficial concession, as we know from the experience of our contacts with old-age pensioners.
I do not dispute that hon. Members opposite make contacts with old-age pensioners, which is natural and inevitable, because from time to time they seek the support and solicit the suffrage of old-age pensioners. Very often they mislead them. But for the fact that the Conservative Party has misled the electors of the country ever since I can remember, they would never have gained office. They would be down and out, as they undoubtedly deserve to be.
I turn to the vital point. Once a concession has been enjoyed by people who, it will be readily admitted, are not too well off, why should it have been taken away? It is agreed that old-age pensioners, in spite of improvements in

their financial position and in spite of National Assistance, are not too well off. That is conceded by everyone. These persons enjoyed a concession over a period of years. No matter who was responsible, the fact remains that the concession was beneficial to them. Why should it have been taken away? Because it was taken from them, we are entitled to protest.
I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite—who I am sure are anxious to treat these old persons, as we are, in a proper and humane fashion—do not support this proposal. Never mind about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I said in a previous speech, he cannot help himself. He has his Treasury officials behind him. He has to balance his Budget— not that I believe that it is necessary to balance a Budget in this fashion. There have been occasions in the past when we did not balance the Budget, and the country prospered. If it did not prosper at a particular time, it made a very speedy recovery.
I do not know what sum would be required. No doubt my right hon. Friends have stated all the facts in the course of the debate. However, I will put it at £1 million. A mere matter of £1 million, provided to assist old-age pensioners of the male variety, because I understand that this applies substantially to male old-age pensioners, will not ruin the country.
In those circumstances, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to shake off the rigidity of the party system, as some of us are capable of doing from time to time. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to assert their independence, respond to their honesty and internal convictions, and not be afraid of the Patronage Secretary or any of his accomplices, or perhaps I should say "associates".
I understand that an increase in the rate of old-age pension is out for the time being, more is the pity, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to interject at this stage and make a promise that shortly he will revise the old-age pension. If he is not prepared to do that, he should be prepared to make this modest concession. That is all we ask for. If he does not do that, I am sorry to say—I say it with the greatest reluctance—that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mrs. Slater: I am surprised that the fact that we have raised this issue should, at this late stage in the debate, be described as class warfare by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). I do not suppose that he would like us to remind him that it will be class war with a vengeance when we come to later Clauses dealing with the amount of retirement pension which someone who retires from a directorship can get without having to pay tax on it. That will not be class warfare. It will be merely looking after the people whom hon. Members really represent in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is rather anticipating a future Amendment.

Mrs. Slater: With respect, Sir Gordon, I am not merely anticipating. I am drawing a comparison, which has already been levelled at us who have sat here throughout the debate tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the statistics were all against us. He did not say specifically that old-age pensioners were not suffering any hardship, but the inference was there in his argument. I therefore intervene to say that I defy anyone in the Committee to go to industrial areas, not to Southend and comparable places, and talk to old-age pensioners and find that they agree that there is no undue hardship in having to live on £2 10s. a week. That is what it amounts to. There are thousands of old-age pensioners who live on £2 10s. a week and who will not apply for National Assistance.
A few weeks ago I told a meeting of old-age pensioners that every one of them should claim National Assistance, and should do so without any sense of inferiority at all, but, as I have said in the House before, this is the generation of old-age pensioners that has been reared in the school that did not like

charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "'It is not charity."] No, it is not charity, but the point is that one cannot convince them of that. They have been reared in the school that remembers the means test and the workhouse, and it is extremely difficult to convince them that National Assistance is not charity. We know that it is their right; that it is paid for by National Insurance. We hope that they will claim it, but many do not.

Those who have no conception of how old-age pensioners have to live, of how little £2 10s. buys today, cannot appreciate why we on this side have tabled this Amendment. We would rather have an increase in the old-age pension, of course. We think that is right, but, failing that, and when an injustice is done, all we on this side can do is to try to alleviate that injustice.

As has been said, many old-age pensioners have three things that give them comfort in their old age. One is a fire, another is a cup of tea, and the third is their tobacco or their cigarettes. An hon. Member opposite laughs—that shows an attitude of mind. How anybody can laugh at such a statement, I do not know. It only shows that some hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the conditions under which these people live. I feel indignant when people laugh during a discussion of such a subject as this.

We have tabled this Amendment to try to give some small measure of relief to those people to whom tobacco and cigarettes are some comfort, and I suggest that those who claim to be sympathetic with old people in present circumstances will have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 244.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Bowles, Frank
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, C.)
Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Cower)


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brookway, A. Fenner
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Awbery, Stan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, George


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Delargy, Hugh


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cattle, Mrs. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Benee, Cyril (Dunbartornthire, E.)
Chetwynd, George
Diamond, John


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'I, S.E.)
Cliffe, Michael
Dodds, Norman


Blyton, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Driberg, Tom


Boardman, H.
Cronin, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Darling, George
Edelman, Maurice




Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Or. J. Dickson
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert
Mackle, John
Short, Edward


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Dingle
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Sorensen, R. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Steele, Thomas


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Hannan, William
Moody, A. S.
Swain, Thomas


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, John
Swingler, Stephen


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, George


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moyle, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mulley, Frederick
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Hunter, A. E.
Padley, W, E.
Timmons, John


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwrlght, Edwin


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John
Warbey, William


Janner, Barrett
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, Tudor


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Weltzman, David


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Wheeldon, W. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Prentice, R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
price, J, T. (westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. c. W.
Redhead, E. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


King, Dr. Horace
Reynolds, G. W.
Wnterbottom, R. E.


Lawson, George
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Woof, Robert


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Howell and Mr. Mahon.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Atlason, James
Collard, Richard
Goodhart, Philip


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tlv'tn)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)


Barber, Anthony
Cordle, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, F. V.
Green, Alan


Barter, John
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Batsford, Brian
Coulson, J. M.
Grimond, J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
 Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos &amp; Fhm)
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Blggs-Davlson, John
Cunningham, Knox
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Blngham, R. M.
Curran, Charles
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Black, Sir Cyril
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hendry, Forbes


Bossom, Clive
Deedes, W. F.
Hiley, Joseph


Bourne-Arton, A.
de Ferranti, Basil
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Hill, j. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brewls, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R.
Eden, John
Hobson, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Emery, Peter
Hocking, Philip N.


Bullard, Denye
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holland, Philip


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hollingworth, John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme
Holt, Arthur


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fisher, Nigel
Hopkins, Alan


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Channon, H. P. G.
Freeth, Denzil
Hughes-Young, Michael


Chataway, Christopher
Gammans, Lady
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gardner, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jackson, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
James, David







Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stanley Hon. Richard


Jennings, J. C.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Stodart, J. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Page, A. J. (Harrow West)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Page, Graham
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Partridge, E.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
Talbot, John E.


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Teeling, William


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Leburn, Gilmour
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pott, Percivall
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lilley, F. J. P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lindsay, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, Colin


Longden, Gilbert
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Loveys, Walter H.
Ramsden, James
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McAdden, Stephen
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


MacArthur, Ian
Rees, Hugh
Wade, Donald


McLaren, Martin
Renton, David
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, At. Hon. George (Worcester)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool,S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Maddan, Martin
Roots, William
Watts, James


Maginnis, John E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wise, A. R.


Marshall, Douglas
Russell, Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Seymour, Leslie
Woodhouse, C. M.


Matthews, Robert (Meriden)
Sharples, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, M.
Woollam, John


Mills, Stratton
Shepherd, William
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Morgan, William
Skeet, T. H. H.



Nabarro, Gerald
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nicholls, Harmar
Smithers, Peter
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. Whitelaw.


Noble, Michael
Speir, Rupert

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. H. Wilson: We on this side of the Committee had envisaged that, after a suitable debate on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and on the Amendment which has just been disposed of, the main arguments about the Tobacco Duty would be deployed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it seems to me—I do not know how it will seem to other hon. Members in the Committee—that we have had a fairly full discussion on the points in question while debating the Amendments—taking into account also, of course, the debate on the Budget.
I do not want in the least to discourage any of my hon. Friends who have substantial points to make on the increase in the Tobacco Duty from making them, but I think that most of us who have taken part on the debates on the Amendments proposed to this Clause will now feel that we have had

a good run over the field. For my part, I would be prepared to recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends to allow us to come to a decision quite quickly on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I do not think that the Chancellor will be in any doubt about what we intend to do about the Clause. We have opposed his decision to increase the Tobacco Duty. We voted against it immediately he announced it on Budget day. We voted against it on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions. We have been dealing with it in Committee for some hours now and, obviously, we shall register our disapproval of the Chancellor's action in the Division Lobby when you, Sir Gordon, put the Question.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments which we have used. The Chancellor knows them and if those arguments did not convince him I have little hope that they will do so by repeating this evening. They were


clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) two or three hours ago, and they emerged in the more recent debate on the position of old-age pensioners.
If I may suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends that we now come to a speedy decision on the Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill" it is on the very clear understanding, as far as I am concerned, that if hon. Members opposite want to continue the argument on the Clause it will be very difficult for me to persuade any of my hon. Friends to take that attitude. I want to explain that while not only on this Clause, but throughout the Bill, we are more than willing to help the Bill go through fairly quickly—

Mr. Ede: Why?

Mr. Nabarro: There is a rebellion over there already.

Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has been so busy with other things, perhaps, that he has not had time to read the Bill. If he had read it he would know that it is the dullest Finance Bill introduced by a Chancellor of the Exchequer since Chancellors of the Exchequer were invented.

Mr. Ede: It sounds to me like a cure for insomnia.

Mr. Wilson: The best cure for insomnia is in bed, and if my right hon. Friend has any difficulty—

Mr. Ede: That is where I have used it.

Mr. Wilson: If my right hon. Friend is in any difficulty he can take the text of the Bill away with him and we will try to secure that he gets to bed early before he reaches Clause 12. If he is still in difficulty I advise him to skip some Clauses and get on to Clause 26; but I would be out of order in discussing the merits or demerits of Clause 26 tonight.
As I have said, while, throughout the Bill, we want a full debate on some of the big issues raised, we do not want to spend much time on the minutiae of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "The what?"] The minutiae; in other words talking about Amendments tabled by hon. Members opposite—if that is easier

to understand. There are 74 of them against 38 tabled from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Nabarro: But the right hon. Member said "minutiæ".

Mr. Wilson: Yes, I did.
As I was trying to say before I was somewhat distracted, we are prepared to co-operate and to reserve our comments to the more important parts of the Bill, but if hon. Members opposite want to talk at great length on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", as they are fully entitled to do on the Bill, they will find inevitably that we cannot appeal with such confidence to hon. Friends to restrain themselves on points which they feel like making. While not wanting to block anybody who thinks it necessary to speak, I am willing that we should now come to a decision on the Clause and that we on this side of the Committee should vote against it for all the reasons which have been so eloquently urged by my hon. and right hon. Friends.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that most of the arguments have been deployed. I gave in the Budget debate and in the House on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the reasons why I felt it advisable to recommend an increase in this duty to bring in £40 million this year, which I felt it necessary to obtain for both budgetary reasons and economic reasons, making as it does some limited impact on consumer spending.
I should like to make it quite clear that I am not trying to exercise any moral judgment. Some hon. Gentlemen asked whether I was endeavouring to do that. It was certainly not my intention. The reasons are purely fiscal and economic.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) told us that he started smoking at the age of 13. He looks very well on it, I must say, and I shall continue, I hope, to rely upon numbering him among my patrons for the Tobacco Duty.
One hon. Member said that my action in recommending an increase in this duty seemed wholly inconsistent with the reduction in the Beer Duty last year.


But it is wholly consistent. The main reason, as I made clear to the House at the time last year, and to the Committee, for recommending a reduction in the Beer Duty was that the yield of the duty was falling away alarmingly year by year and it was necessary to do something for the protection of the Revenue. Indeed, Sir Stafford Cripps had attempted the same thing. The action that I took seems to have been successful, and the trend is now moving the other way.
I do not expect this increase in duty to lead to a reduction in consumption.

In fact, since the date of the Budget, apart from the increased yield due to the higher price, there has been an increase in the volume of tobacco on which duty has been paid.

I do not think there is any need for me to say anything more to the Committee and I hope that the Committee will now come to a conclusion on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 159.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[9.47 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Eden, John
Lambton, Viscount


Allason, James
Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathooat (Tiv'tn)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour


Atkins, Humphrey
Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Barter, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Batsford, Brian
Freeth, Denzll
Lindsay, Martin


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bell Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Dr.Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys, Walter H.


Bingham, R. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McAdden, Stephen


Bishop, F. P.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Bossom, Clive
Goodhew, Victor
McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Box, Donald
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Boyle Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maddan, Martin


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Brooman-White, R.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Butcher Sir Herbert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hay, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morgan, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Harmar


Chataway, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Michael


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.))
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Cleaver, Leonard
Hobson, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cole, Norman
Hooking, Philip N.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Collard, Richard
Holland, Philip
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)


Cooke, Robert
Hollingworth, John
Page, Graham


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hopkins, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cordle, John




Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Coulson, J. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jackson, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
James, David
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, J. C.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pott, Percivall


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Powell, J. Enoch


Dance, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Prior, J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Proudfoot, Wilfred


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ramsden, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Hugh


Duncan, Sir James
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, David




Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Stodart, J. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Roots, William
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Summers, sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Russell, Ronald
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Talbot, John E.
Watts, James


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Seymour, Leslie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wise, A. R.


Shaw, M.
Teeling, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hon, Richard


Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Woollam, John


Smithers, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Speir, Rupert
Turner, Colin



Stanley, Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stevens, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples.


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.





NOES


Ainsley, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist' I, S.E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Blyton, William
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Short, Edward


Boyden, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Clifle, Michael
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Deer, George
McLeavy, Frank
Swingter, Stephen


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Sylvester, George


Delargy, Hugh
Mahon, Simon
Symonds, J. B.


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dodds, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
Mayhew, Christopher
Timmons, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, sir Lynn


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, Walter
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle
Morris, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Wheeldon, W. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mulley, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ginsburg, David
Nabarro, Gerald
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grey, Charles
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John



Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Howell and Mr. Redhead.

Clause 6.—(TOBACCO DEALERS' LICENCES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. A. E. Oram: In his Budget statement, the Chancellor forecast this Clause hen he said that it was his intention to simplify the administration of the tobacco licence duty. That is the simple purpose of the Clause and we ought, therefore, not to take long to deal with it. However, it is worth taking a few minutes to consider the nature of the tobacco dealer's licence and the problem which arises from its administration. I am concerned with the licensing of mobile shops for the sale of tobacco and cigarettes.
As the law stands, mobile shops cannot be licensed for the sale of tobacco except in exceptional circumstances and then only temporarily. The origin of the tobacco licence goes back to an Excise Measure of 1825, by which the licences were tied to fixed premises. That excludes mobile shops, which have become an important and distinctive method of distribution in more modern days.
The Customs and Excise has administered the law quite narrowly. It is possible to get a licence for a goods vehicle to sell tobacco only in very special circumstances, where there is a special local need and where it is recognised that before long a permanent local shop will be available. However, that works out anomalously, especially for the Co-operative movement, and there is a particular anomaly to which I call attention.
It is not necessarily the same trader who will occupy the fixed shop when it comes to be built as the trader who has the licence for the temporary mobile shop. The effect of that is that some co-operative societies, having succeeded in getting a temporary licence for a mobile shop, often find that it is withdrawn when a shop occupied by a private trader takes its place. The Co-operative movement is especially interested in this matter of the need for licences for mobile shops and if this anomaly were rectified there would be applications for licences for as many as 2,000 mobile shops owned by the Cooperative movement and which we believe ought to have licences.
10.0 p.m.
In certain local authority areas, over the years, co-operative societies have often found difficulty in getting shop sites on housing estates owing to the prejudice of the local authority. For that reason they have had to operate mobile shops and it is a handicap to them in the development of their trade if they are not able to sell tobacco and cigarettes. The narrow interpretation put on the law by the Customs and Excise Department almost means that mobile shops operating in rural areas are prevented from selling tobacco and cigarettes to the customers in those areas.
I stress that the origin of this law goes back to 1825. In those days, the mobile shop had not been thought of. That law has been considerably outdated by the development of this new distributive method. In 1825, the law tied licences to fixed premises. Today, mobile shops are an important distributive method in their own right. I do not want anyone to suggest that this means hawking tobacco and cigarettes. A mobile shop means a specially designed vehicle with standards of equipment and hygiene which are usually well above those of many fixed small shops. These mobile shops operate on a fixed route according to a fixed timetable, stopping at recognised places at certain times, and they can be clearly and easily identified as outlets for the sale of commodities, which ought to include tobacco and cigarettes.
I stress the ease of identification of a mobile shop. Incidentally, there is a very clear description of a mobile shop for Purchase Tax purposes, so there should be no difficulty of identification. The licence tax was originally and, I maintain, is still meant to be a means of identification. It is not primarily a revenue producer and it certainly was not intended to be, as in the case of liquor licensing, a method of restricting the number of outlets for the sale of tobacco. For all those reasons I believe that a properly equipped mobile shop, operating to a definite programme, ought to receive a licence as readily as a fixed shop receives it.
As the Economic Secretary probably knows, representations have been made by the Co-operative movement on this matter. I understand that those representations have been turned down. I


do not know why the Government have turned down the approaches that have been made by the Co-operative movement. It cannot be that the outlets cannot be identified, because what I have said shows that they can be.
It ought not to be on restrictive grounds, but I am rather suspicious that it may be. If the Government are using the tobacco licence for the purpose of restricting the number of outlets, that is severely discriminating against the Co-operative movement. It may not be the intention of the Government to discriminate in that way, but as the law is now being administered that is the effect. In any case, the Committee should be told what reasons the Government advance for turning down the suggestion that mobile shops should be licensed.
In my judgment, Clause 187 of the 1952 Act needs considerably more amendment than is proposed in the Clause, and I hope that the Minister will consider this question again and see whether his Department has not made a mistake in turning down the representations made by the Co-operative movement. If he comes to the conclusion that there has been a mistake, perhaps he will be able to give an assurance that he will move a suitable Amendment on Report.

Mr. Redhead: I do not wish to detain the Committee long at this hour, especially on a matter which, compared with the subjects dealt with in the previous Clause, is relatively minor. Naturally we applaud the Chancellor for taking the opportunity to tidy up and simplify what must be a somewhat tedious and cumbersome business—the annual collection of a licence duty of only 5s. 3d. This procedure is a survival of the happy days when the licence was 10s. 6d. Some Chancellor, in a generous mood, said, "Let us halve it." To substitute for that method a four-year licence costing £1 is a sensible operation, which should cut down the amount of administration required.
Nevertheless, I am not clear why the Chancellor should have thought it desirable, at the same time, to abolish what would appear to be a convenient form of combined liquor-tobacco licence in

respect of aircraft and ships. While he was carrying out the desirable operation of introducing a four-yearly duty he might have addressed himself more to the anachronisms involved in the application of the licence duty, which, as my hon. Friend has said, was never intended to be a revenue-producing duty; its sole purpose was to ensure the registration of dealers for the purpose of control and safeguarding the Revenue in respect of the major duty—the duty on tobacco itself.
There is something to be said for the argument that whatever might have been the necessity for rigidity in limiting tobacco dealers' licences to fixed premises originally, in these days the restriction could reasonably and sensibly be relaxed. My hon. Friend has made a legitimate point in saying that in these days, when control is well established, there cannot be any grave risk in extending dealers' licences to mobile shops, subject to proper safeguards.
It is absurd that a person should be able to order tobacco or cigarettes from a shop which has a licence and have those goods delivered by a van without an offence being committed. It is absurd that a person can go into any one of our big railway stations and buy cigarettes and tobacco from a mobile truck, because the Customs and Excise authorities have got round their own difficulty by registering the station as fixed premises of its own. We can obtain tobacco and cigarettes in a railway train, and it is inconsistent that we cannot do so from a duly safeguarded mobile shop.
Whatever the difficulties may be, I suggest that they could readily be overcome. Registration of a mobile shop could be in such a form that it was clearly restricted to some fixed premises which had a licence. That would afford the Revenue all the reasonable safeguards that are requisite in a matter of this kind.
I hope therefore that, if the proposition has already been rejected, the Chancellor will be ready to look at this matter again, assured, as I feel he must be, that there can be no grave risk to the Revenue in this regard. On the contrary, I would regard it as in accordance with modern trends to extend this provision in the way that has been suggested.

Mr. Barber: This is a small but, I think the hon. Member for Waltham-stow. West (Mr. Redhead) will agree, a useful reform which will be advantageous both to the tobacco trade and to Customs and Excise. I am told that the retail tobacco licence dates from the reign of Charles I, so my hon. Friends can be assured that there is no question of the ambit of the Clause breaking new ground.
The question that immediately arises is why it should be necessary to license the sale of tobacco at all. The fact is that there is still a certain amount of trafficking in un-Customed and stolen tobacco, and it is also necessary to guard against adulteration. It is therefore obviously advantageous to have a register of legitimate retail outlets, and therefore the licensing system remains an essential part of the system of control.
The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) raised the question of mobile shops, and this was also referred to by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West. I should like to say, and I hope they will understand this, that I did not have any notice that this aspect was to be raised, and therefore I am not in as good a position to give a full and detailed reply as I might otherwise have been. But, as the hon. Member for East Ham, South knows, this was recently considered first by Customs and Excise and then by the Treasury, and the view was taken that the request which the hon. Gentleman is now making could not be acceded to.
The hon. Gentleman knows the conclusion we reached, but the arguments against his request are certainly not overwhelming and I realise that circumstances change. I assure him that I will be ready to look at it again. But I ought to point out that it was only recently—although I have not got the dates—that a decision was taken in this matter. It would therefore be wrong and misleading— although I will look into it again—to hold out any great hope of the possibility of anything being done in this Finance Bill.
If circumstances change and it is thought desirable in the interests of the public that there should be these licences for mobile shops, I hope that as soon as the hon. Gentleman gets any new information he will let me have it. I

will be only too ready to look into it again, and, if necessary, to ask him to come and discuss it with me.

Mr. Mitchison: May I add my plea to those of my hon. Friends? I have seen these mobile shops operating in my constituency, and they are particularly useful in places like new towns, where the distances between one tobacco shop and another are considerable. The Clause already provides for licensing, among other things, a tramcar, of which there are comparatively few survivors. If one can license a tramcar for this purpose, surely one can license one of these perambulating vans.
May I give the hon. Gentleman one further instance? I live in a village in Scotland where the nearest shop is some distance away, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) will be glad to know that I am regularly served by a co-op. van. It brings round our ordinary things, and I cannot see any possible objection to it being allowed to bring round tobacco, also. I see no risk of the perils mentioned by the Economic Secretary— adulteration, trafficking, and things of that sort.
I hope that something will be done about the matter. I hope, also, that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that we must reserve our right to come back to this matter on Report, because, small though it is, it is not unimportant. We trust that it will not be necessary, and that by then the Government will feel able to accede to the request that has been made.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I should like to impress upon my hon. Friend the need to reconsider the decision which was recently made. I do not think it was reached on the grounds of revenue safeguards, but I think it was influenced by a great deal of prejudice. I have been connected with mobile shops and I know that the co-operative society would be the main beneficiary if such a change were made, which generates a certain amount of prejudice. There is a good deal of prejudice against this method of distribution from established traders with fixed shops. But in the days when self-service is taking away all kinds of real service to the public, I do not think we should put an


impediment in the way of methods of distribution such as this, when there is no serious ground for refusing this reasonable request.
A great number of van drivers carry tobacco illicitly and it would be much better that they should be licensed and that there should be proper control over these transactions than that the van driver should have a small pocket in the cab of his vehicle or some other hiding place where he stores the tobacco that he sells. Some firms have experienced great difficulty over this matter and have had to discharge drivers and salesmen who have been illicitly selling tobacco. So, in the interests of tidying up what is in a sense an injustice, and which leads to abuses, I ask my hon. Friend to have another look at the decision which was arrived at recently.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that the expressions of opinion by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will encourage the Economic Secretary to go a little further than his somewhat warning answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) seemed to indicate. In his concluding sentences the hon. Gentleman appeared to modify a point of view which to us seemed heartening, that he would consider the matter so that we shall have it before us on Report. He seemed to qualify that by saying that he did not think that much could be done.

Mr. Barber: The point I was making was that this is a matter of importance which arose from requests made before I went to the Treasury, and consequently I am not completely au fait with all the details. I wished to make it clear that, while I shall certainly look at it again, my recollection is that we reached a decision only recently and it would be wrong to hold out great hopes. But I will take note of the opinions which have been expressed.

Mr. Rankin: Then I was correct. We appreciate the position of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be influenced by what has been said.
There is a special case for what we are claiming. To the Co-operative movement this is not a minor matter, it is very important. In our great cities there are huge housing schemes under con-

struction and, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), new shops are put into these areas but sometimes there is a great distance between the shops. In my view, this creates discrimination between certain members of the same cooperative society, because if one member happens to have a telephone in has house he can phone the society, order what tobacco he wants and it will be brought to him in a van. That happens to my hon. and learned Friend and to myself. If an individual has not got a telephone, no mobile shop is permitted to bring to him what a member of the same society can get without any trouble. That is a discrimination. The only way in which it can be put right so that all members of the same society shall be treated in the same way is by allowing the mobile shop to carry these goods for which at present it has no licence.
It could be fairly argued that a mobile shop is an extension of a fixed shop. It is not a different thing or something new, but merely an extension of the service granted by the fixed shop. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to his right hon. Friend the sentiments which have been expressed in this short debate and that when he thinks it over again before Report the travelling shop will be granted a licence to sell tobacco.

Mr. James Dempsey: While I respect the caution which the Economic Secretary proposes to exercise in this problem, I was rather disturbed at the lukewarm attitude he displayed towards it when he suggested that, as it had been recently considered, he could hold out little hope that anything could be done. That attitude lacked an appreciation of the origin of this new type of service, the mobile shop, which is not confined to the Co-operative movement. Private enterprise is extending this kind of service in all parts of the country and in my part of the country there has been a tremendous extension of private enterprise in the last few years.
I think that there is some misunderstanding of the eligibility of this service. Listening to the Economic Secretary, one got the impression that it is an entirely separate business, a business in its own right. If that were so, I could understand the arguments which have been put forward. It is not a rateable service and


in some respects it may not be a taxable service, but that leads to a misunderstanding of the service. It operates from a headquarters which is basically fixed, a set of premises, and organisation established by retail distributors already serving the community. This is an extension of another branch of the service which is rated and taxed for local authority and national revenue purposes. The Economic Secretary should try to see the mobile service as a business of that nature.
What is difficult to comprehend is some of the references made by the Economic Secretary to all sorts of elements which, in his short reply, he said should be considered. He mentioned hygiene, but some of us who have had experience of examining the most up-to-date type of mobile shop are convinced that it is far more hygienic than some of the fixed shops from which tobacco and cigarettes are sold. There is no valid argument about hygiene in that respect. I am talking about the mobile shops which provide a service second-to-none in different parts of the country.
When he is reviewing the matter, the Economic Secretary should have some regard to those parts of the country which are sparsely populated. I am thinking of a county in my locality which I understand contains the largest Parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, which is indicative of the sparse population in the area. It is not possible for many members of the public in such an area to obtain tobacco and cigarettes except when, infrequently, they visit one of the largest villages. For week after week these people rely mainly on service from mobile vans.
It seems to me unfair that people living in a village or a small croft in some of the remote parts of the country should be prevented from purchasing the type of tobacco and cigarettes they want from mobile vans because the vans are not licensed to supply these goods. It is very unfair, because customers who live in a town have daily access to shops for these commodities. It is wrong that the law of the country should permit such an anomaly, which can be eliminated only by extending this type of service from mobile vans.
I ask the Economic Secretary and the Government also to consider the very

great privilege which we enjoy in this country known as freedom of choice by the consumer. The consumers in this country are entitled to freedom of choice. I belong to a local authority which is controlled by the Labour movement, and we have been very interested in this principle. If I live in an outlying farmsteading I am not able to purchase Co-operative cigarettes and tobacco unless I travel to the nearest town. I have to purchase private enterprise cigarettes and tobacco, which, as a consumer in a free country, I am entitled to refuse. I recognise that the converse is true; I am one of the first to concede that. But surely in the twentieth century we should not be bedevilled by an Act which the Economic Secretary has traced back to the reign of Charles I. Surely legislation needs to be modernised. The right way to modernise it is to extend the tobacco licence to cover mobile trading concerns. We should ensure that all sections of the community have freedom of choice. I would then leave it to the super-salesmen to try to ensure that their commodities are selected by the consumer.
We have a special problem in Scotland which has been argued time and again —the problem of unemployment. As a result of unemployment in many parts of Scotland, many retail traders are unwilling to build shops and to commit themselves to the capital expenditure necessary. That is because of the reduction in the purchasing power of the consumer following the serious unemployment in parts of Scotland. As a consequence, the general public must have a greater reliance on the mobile van service. In such circumstances, when we are dependent on the mobile van service because of this economic problem, it seems to me that we should have the full range of commodities at our disposal when the mobile van arrives on some of the smaller housing estates or in some of the expanded village development in that part of the United Kingdom.
10.30 p.m.
I believe that these are logical reasons why the Economic Secretary should give very sympathetic consideration to my request that we should extend the dealers' licences to mobile shops. I earnestly hope that he will consider all the points


which have been raised. I appeal to him to realise that this is a problem of significance in some areas. One hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the Clause was quite a minor affair compared with the previous Clause. It may appear to many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to be minor, but in some areas it is very important. I hope that the Economic Secretary will not underrate its importance when he arrives at his conclusion, which I trust will be on the lines suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Barber: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I think that it would be helpful if I repeat that I shall be only too happy to consider this aspect of the mobile shop again. However, I should like to point out that the Clause is concerned only with the method of licensing and does not in any way either detract from or extend the premises, or whatever one wishes to call them, which may or may not be licensed. It is for that reason that I say to the Committee that perhaps I may be permitted to look into it.
Under the present system, a tobacco dealer's licence is not valid for more than one year, and it may expire on a variety of dates. The principal purpose of the Clause is to replace the existing system of one year licences, with differing expiry dates, by licences which will expire uniformly on 31st December in the third calendar year after that in which they are issued. This will be an advantage, both to the trade and to the Revenue, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that subsection (2) raises a question which is not the one he stated and is in some ways not so very far from that now put forward?

Mr. Barber: Yes. I appreciate that subsection (2) raises that question. I shall be very happy to say something about it.

Mr. Mitchison: Oh.

Mr. Barber: Then perhaps we may leave it at this stage. The passenger aircraft and passenger vehicles referred to in subsection (2) are already entitled to sell tobacco, and will remain so entitled in the future under the new method.

Mr. Oram: I agree with what the Economic Secretary said about the purpose of subsection (1), but did he intend to say that this Clause is unsuitable for amendment to meet the purposes mentioned in the debate? Is it his opinion that it would be impossible to amend the Clause to extend licensing to mobile shops?

Mr. Barber: I would not like to hazard an opinion on that, because I have not considered the possibility of an Amendment to the Clause on those lines. It is something which the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) and I might perhaps consider and take advice from the Table.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(Mechanical lighters.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Redhead: When in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast the production of this Clause, he said that he was
Inspired by reforming zeal, and moving on from one bold action to another …".— [Official Report, 4th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 52.]
Those opening words led us to expect great things. Our minds were quickly disillusioned by what followed. Having seen the Clause, I have seldom seen reform obscured in so much verbiage.
It may well be that the technical phraseology of the Clause is absolutely unavoidable, but I should like the Economic Secretary to convey to the Chancellor the considered view of many hon. Members that when we necessarily have to deal with the mechanics of taxation and tax collection in rather obscure wording like this, we would be greatly helped if some sort of explanatory document framed in simple terms could be issued. That might be an advantage to the Chancellor and to our discussions. Otherwise, with such a Clause as this, there always comes to the suspicious-minded the thought that the wording might hide something very sinister.
In delving into its purpose, I have not been able to detect anything sinister in the Clause—indeed, it seems to be very largely a question of tidying up some of the administrative difficulties that have been experienced. Apparently the scope of the duty is being somewhat altered, and perhaps we may be told to what extent the scope is being changed by the new definition of mechanical lighter. Presumably, it is not expected to make any appreciable difference to the revenue from this source.
Judging from the Financial Statement, only a negligible increase under the heading of matches and mechanical lighters will result in the coming year, but if the Economic Secretary will assure us that this is, in substance, no more than an amendment to the administrative procedure to render things easier for the Customs and the traders, we shall be happy to accept the Clause.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) is quite right—the definition of mechanical lighters does extend the scope in one regard. The definition of mechanical lighters is extended to include all portable lighters—and I shall return to that in a moment. The Clause also gives statutory authority to the existing practice of charging duty at the point at which lighters leave the manufacturers' premises. This is a practice that is far more convenient to all concerned.
The reason why it is necessary to extend the definition is the appearance of a new type of lighter which does not produce either a spark or a flame. This is called, I am told, a torch lighter. It has a dual-purpose battery which either lights an electric bulb, and so becomes a torch, or causes a small element to glow, and thus becomes a lighter. It is outside the existing definition. I am told that it is not, at present, imported in any large quantities, but it is obviously desirable to close the loophole, not only for the protection of the Revenue but from the point of view of our mechanical lighter manufacturers who have to pay duty.
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the operative date of the new definition is 4th August next. That is to enable those who are holding stocks of the new type of lighter to dispose of them without duty in the meantime, and also to enable those who propose, or were proposing, to import or manufacture them to modify their plans if they wish.
I return now to the change in the duty point, which I have mentioned only briefly. Under the existing law, the duty on lighters manufactured in this country is payable on their being manufactured, but to both the Revenue and the manufacturers this has proved to be extremely inconvenient and administratively expensive. The difficulties are obvious: what happens, for instance, in the case of experimental lighters? Again, the rate of duty may change between manufacture and so on.
The complications of stock accounting, control and the like have been so great that, under Treasury authority, the duty point has for some time been taken as the time of delivery from the factory and not as the time of manufacture. This


Clause proposes statutory authority for this arrangement, which will be of benefit to all concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ABOLITION OF DUTIES ON AND LICENCES FOR PLAYING CARDS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Redhead: This is another expression of the Chancellor's great personal reforming zeal, for again he forecast this Clause in words that gave us great hope. He said:
Next in the field of Customs and Excise, I propose the abolition, root and branch, of a duty which is hallowed by 249 years' existence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 52.]
Then when he led us on to the question of the remission of the duty on playing cards our high hopes were disappointed. I hope that the Chancellor's reforming zeal, having started so modestly in this respect, will go on to even greater things in subsequent endeavours.
It is true that this is a very ancient duty, and quite justifiably, I think, the opportunity is being taken to clear up something for which there is no longer any justification, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that playing cards are chargeable for Purchase Tax at 25 per cent., although that has been the position for quite a long time and I should have thought that the opportunity might have been taken earlier to remove this rather outdated and, in fact, not particularly remunerative duty.
In those circumstances, unless any of my hon. Friends feel very keenly about the matter in their anxiety concerning the closing words of the Chancellor, that he hoped this would "not lead to any untoward dissipation", I would recommend my hon. Friends to agree to the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I wish to ask the Economic Secretary one question. For 249 years the ace of spades has had a special marking, and I would be very sorry indeed to see that marking disappear. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee whether it would be in

order for manufacturers producing playing cards in the future to continue, for historic reasons, to assert on the ace of spades that a 3d. Excise Duty has been paid.
We in this country hate making changes. We keep the Monarchy long after its political powers have been taken away from it and we keep the Second Chamber long after its powers have been clipped. I would not like to see the ace of spades become an ordinary playing card after so many years. If the Economic Secretary could allow the practice to continue of marking the card in this way, I think it would be in the highest traditions of the British Constitution.

Mr. Barber: I think it would be proper if I said with all the solemnity at my command that I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Clause 10.—(VEHICLES (EXCISE): HACKNEY CARRIAGES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Benn: We now move on to a new Minister, and, refreshed by his presence, I hope that the Committee will permit me to raise the question of the Vehicle Excise Duty under Clause 10.
We have had many references to the Chancellor's speech when introducing his Budget, and indeed this change in the Excise Duty for hackney carriages was considered so important that the right hon. Gentleman put it first among all the many reforms which he presented to the Committee on 4th April.
As I understand it, this is a very minor change. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman put it first. It provides that a hackney carriage may be a vehicle let for more than three months whereas hitherto it was only for a three-month period or less. A hackney carriage, of course, according to the definition of the 1949 Act, includes not only what we think of as a hackney carriage—a taxicab— but also larger vehicles, and I understand


that this provision may apply to the private hire of buses as well as to hackney carriages proper.
10.45 p.m.
One exception is made in this case. In the Clause it is provided that this shall not affect vehicles that are being let under a hire-purchase agreement. That is to say, we are speaking now purely and simply about vehicles which are let and remain within the ownership of the man who lets them and are not slowly being transferred to other ownership.
I must add one other thing. As I understand it, there is to be no change in the duty payable under the Clause, and, therefore, in practice there will not be more than a minor relief for hackney carriage owners. But at the same time this raises a very important piece of transport policy where the Chancellor has great opportunity to influence the development of transport, and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to it very briefly.
We are discussing the relationship between private cars and hackney carriages and the treatment which each are to receive from the Treasury, and I welcome the presence of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to explain this. I wish that the Chancellor had taken the opportunity presented to him by this modification of the law as it relates to hackney carriages to go a great deal further. I propose in a few moments to give my reasons for that.
It is part of the Opposition's argument that the Government's attitude to transport matters is haphazard in the treatment that they accord to different types, methods and means of transportation. I will give an example to illustrate what I mean. The Ministry of Aviation subsidises airfields in this country to the extent of £10 million a year—it makes that loss—and as a result enables British European Airways to undercut British Railways in the flights to Scotland, which increases the difficulty for British Railways, and this loss falls as a deficit on the Treasury. This seems to us to be one example of bad co-ordination of policy.
Another example is that there is no co-ordination whatsoever between road building, which falls to the Treasury to finance, and railway modernisation.

Those two things, if conducted without relation to one another, may lead to overlapping.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I find it difficult to relate all this to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Benn: I am glad that you are waiting for my next point, Sir William, with which I am going on to deal, and that is the relationship between private and public vehicles in cities. As I understand it, this is exactly the subject of the Clause. It is part of my case that the Treasury ought to adopt a far more liberal view towards the Excise duty to be levied upon hackney carriages as compared with that levied upon private cars. It is part of my argument—if it is out of order, then everything that I have to say is out of order—that urban congestion can be solved only by the public resorting more and more to the hire of vehicles and less and less to the ownership of vehicles. That is the argument that I want to address to the Committee.
Parliament is concerned with the problem of urban congestion in many of its aspects. Efforts are being made to give the Minister power to deal with it. We are all faced with the problem. Everybody recognises that it is one of the great problems of our time. It is part of my argument that the real answer to the problem of urban congestion lies in cheap public transport and that the hire of vehicles for moving about in a city will in the long run offer the only solution to the problem.
I have been trying to think how one can measure urban congestion in order to get some guide as to the fiscal policy that ought to be pursued by the Chancellor in dealing with these matters. There are, obviously, four elements in urban congestion. They are: the amount of road occupied by vehicles, the length of time which that portion of the road is occupied, the number of passengers carried by the vehicles that occupy the road, and the distance travelled by the passengers in the vehicles that occupy the road.
I have tried as best I can to confine these different elements within a single unit of measurement, and I want to offer


to the Committee a new statistical unit which I believe measures the degree of congestion by different types of vehicles. I hate to impose a formula at this hour of the night upon a Committee which is tired and anxious to go home, but when the Committee sees the use to which this statistic can be put I think it will realise that it has some value.
The unit of measurement that I suggest is the proper one for urban congestion is the square foot hours of road space occupied per passenger mile travelled. That brings into operation all the elements I have discussed earlier. Since I invented this statistic I shall name it the "unit of block", which seems an appropriate title. I am dealing with a very difficult part of my brief, which I wrote myself—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to repeat it? We want to get hold of it.

Mr. Benn: I am serious about this. I say that the only way one can measure urban congestion is by taking the square foot hour of road space occupied per passenger mile travelled. That brings in the amount of road occupied, the time for which it is occupied, the number of passengers carried and the distances for which passengers are carried.
I give two extreme examples. The first is that of a man who lives in Westminster and has his office in Mayfair, with a large limousine car 6 feet by 12 feet, and who travels into Mayfair with a chauffeur in the morning. The car is left in the streets until he returns in the evening. The units of block in this case are measured as follows: the car is 6 feet by 12 feet, which gives 72 square feet. It is on the road for 9 hours, which, if one multiplies it by 72, is 648 square feet hours of road occupied, and it carries one man 2 miles a day twice— that is, 4 passenger miles. Divide 648 by 4, and the unit of block is 162.
Next, is a clerk in that man's office, who also lives in Westminster but travels to work by bus. The measurements of the bus are 8 feet by 24 feet. It is on the road for 12 hours. That means 2,304 square feet hours of road space occupied. But, of course, the bus carries, in the course of the day, 40 passengers 120 miles which is 4,800 passenger miles. Divide 2,304 by 4,800 and it will be seen

that it amounts to only 0·5 of my units of block. I hope that the Committee will not think that this is a flippant thing to put over at this time of day.
The difference between the man who travels in the limousine to and from his office, and the man who travels by bus is the difference between 162 units and ·5 of a unit. The other extreme, the man who goes by underground or walks of course occupies no space on the roads.
The most interesting case is that of the man who goes by taxi, because the taxi, I believe, will turn out to be the answer to the problem of urban congestion. Applying the same formula to that taxi, whose size is 4 feet by 8 feet, which is 32 square feet, and assuming that it is on the road for twelve hours, it occupies 384 square feet hours, carrying two men 240 miles a day or 480 passenger miles. Divide 384 by 480 and the unit of block in this case is only 0·75.
Let us compare those four cases that I have given. The man who walks or goes by underground occupies no road space; the man who goes by bus occupies half—0·5—of a block; the man who goes by taxi occupies 0·75, or three-quarters, of a block; and the man who goes by limousine occupies 162 blocks on the London roads.
These figures demonstrate what people recognise to be the fact—though I have never seen it measured before—that the problem of urban congestion proves that taxis and buses are high productivity, low-blockage urban vehicles, whereas private cars are low productivity and high-blockage vehicles. This applies as much whether we have off-street car-parking or not. They still occupy a large part of the urban road area.
The whole point of my argument is that if it is logical for the Ministry of Transport to make private motoring expensive in the cities—which it is going to be with parking meters and off-street car parks, which, if experience in America provides an example, will soon cost £1 a day in the middle of the city—then it is better to back that up by helping to make public transport cheaper. That is why I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go a great deal further in lifting the Excise duty on hackney carriages. I believe that cheap, plentiful, flexible public transport in a city is the real answer to this problem of congestion.
It would be out of order to discuss underground development and I will not attempt it, but it will be in order to discuss buses or taxis. When I sit down and calculate the amount of money which I spend as a motorist in London and I consider the possibility of selling my car and travelling by taxi, I find that there is not all that difference already between the cost of running a private car in a city, even with free parking, as compared with a far greater use of taxis.
I think that we are moving towards the day when the taxi in the big city will turn out to be the answer to our problem. When we say, as we do, about the big cities that public transport is the answer, we must not be hidebound and rigid and suppose that public transport necessarily means only buses. People nowadays have a higher standard and they want to be moved from where they are to where they want to go without necessarily having to walk to the Underground station and back. A more plentiful provision of cheap taxis might offer a greater solution to the Parliamentary Secretary's problem of urban congestion than he has yet fully recognised.
I was interested to see that Mr. Khrushchev made this point in the United States and it was his remark which first set me off on my statistical analysis of the problem. Not only is the taxi the answer, but it may well be that a far greater use of the hire car is an answer. Indeed, there is already evidence that the hire-car business— "drive-yourself"—is booming in this country and we are already beginning to have the development of the system started in the United States by which one picks up a car, drives it to where one wants to go, leaves it there and returns by train.
That helps to get high productivity transport into operation, because what is wrong in this country, which is a small country with few roads and many cars, is that most of the cars at any given time are not in action. Just as we want to get the maximum yield from our roads, so we want to get the maximum yield from our vehicles and the only way in which we can get the maximum yield from our vehicles is by having better

provision, both fiscal and otherwise, for hire-car provision, both "drive-yourself" and the taxi service.
In London, the answer may well be for London Transport to go into the taxi business, perhaps with much smaller vehicles and perhaps in a way different from that which we now have and in some way to cater for the need for individual transport, which exists in the city, without any problem of parking, because the taxi is always on the move. I offer these comments to the Parliamentary Secretary sincerely—it may be that his brief does not cover an answer to them —because the Chancellor of the Exchequer can help a great deal in this regard.
I altogether exclude hire purchase from my argument. I am not interested, for the purpose of this argument, in the man who is trying to acquire a vehicle for his own purposes, because he does not help to solve the problem and is still a man using a vehicle with a low productivity, but the more we can encourage people to hire vehicles, the better and the sooner we will be able to solve the problem of congestion.
The Clause appears to go a tiny fraction of the way towards a solution of the problem and makes it a little easier for firms to hire their own buses rather than use public transport. It makes it a little easier for the long-term hirer whereas the provision was previously limited to three months.
This is the beginning of a campaign which we on this side of the Committee will be waging on future Finance Bills for far greater Government help and consideration for the type of transport which is paid for only when it is used, as against the private motorist who cannot hope, with all the new roads in the world, in future to be able to use the country's big cities to an unlimited extent. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in the goodness of his heart and from the breadth of his knowledge and experience, feels able to address some comments to this argument, I shall very much appreciate it.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The Committee will have admired the ingenuity with which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)


has been able, on the somewhat flimsy basis of the Clause, to erect a substantial and interesting argument, to which I shall return later.
First, I want to say a word about the Clause and what it does. Its purpose is to make a change in the vehicle Excise duties payable by certain types of bus. The Clause deletes from the definition of a hackney carriage, contained in Section 27 (1) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, a proviso which enables buses and coaches to be licensed at the rate of duty applicable to ordinary private vehicles if they are 1st for a period of three months or more. A vehicle which is let for three months or more is not classified as a hackney carriage, and it becomes liable for duty under Section 6 and the Fifth Schedule of the Act, which apply to all vehicles, including private cars, not covered by any other Section. The rate of duty payable becomes £12 10s. a year instead of the hackney carriage rate, which varies from £12 a year for a vehicle which has between four and 20 seats and £12 plus 10s. for each seat in excess of 20 for vehicles with more than 20 seats.
This is a provision of considerable antiquity. I understand its origin is in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888. It has become largely unworkable, because we have found that contracts of this kind can be and frequently are varied after the vehicle excise licence has been issued. Similarly, contracts do not usually stipulate for the use of a particular vehicle, but rather that the hirer will provide vehicles of a particular kind or capacity, and hirers sometimes substitute one vehicle for another. Contracts may also be expressed in terms which do not establish finally whether vehicles are or are not hired for three months or more. The extent of the problem is indicated by the fact that in one case last year a hirer was able to claim a refund of duty amounting to no less than £6,000. In any case, I do not think that the Committee would deny that there is no good reason in principle why a bus let for hire for a period of three months or more should pay a different rate of duty than one let for a shorter period, or not let at all.
The practical effect of the change is that firms providing transport for public works contractors and others on the basis

of long-term contracts which have in the past paid duty at the private car rate will in future pay duty at the rate appropriate to the seating capacity of the vehicle. The smaller buses, with 20 seats or less, will pay duty at a slightly lower rate than at present. For larger buses there is a graduated addition to the flat rate of 10s. for every seat over 20. A 20-seater bus now paying £12 10s. will, in future, pay £12, while a 30-seater paying £12 10s. will in future pay £17. The change will have very little effect on revenue.
That is the purpose behind the Clause. I now come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. The important thing to understand is that vehicle excise licences have never been used in the past for the kind of vehicle control over traffic that he was envisaging. The duties that we are concerned with in the Clause and the duties mentioned in the Vehicles (Excise) Act are intended only to raise revenue. The only exception, if it be an exception, to that general rule has in the past been in the case of hackney carriages, because some years ago it was necessary to stimulate the motor industry in this country, with the useful results we all know. The hackney carriage rate has for some time been lower than the private car rate. That is one of the reasons for this Clause. Basically, our policy has always been that vehicle excise duties are in aid of the revenue and not in aid of the prevention of traffic congestion.
I must confess that I am not a mathematician. I listened with the greatest interest and only a minor degree of comprehension to the hon. Gentleman's ingenious formula. When he got to his unit of block, I thought he was thinking of some kind of statistical unit we might use in this Committee for describing those hon. Members who from time to time felt it their duty to delay the passage of Government legislation, but the hon. Gentleman made it clear that this was a mathematically designed formula to try to measure congestion on our streets. I am one of those who is always a bit baffled by statistics. I remember the classic phrase, "There are three degrees of lies—lies, damn lies, and statistics". I must read very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said and take the necessary advice from those who know far more about mathematics than I do.

Mr. Benn: It was very simple.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman may have found it so, but I did not. I would not like to give any answer upon whether it is feasible to measure congestion on our streets.
I think that we must have a sense of proportion. Although the private car is creating very substantial problems in the big towns and cities, we must remember that the private car is not only an outward and visible sign of the increasing prosperity of the people, but is also the end product of a thriving and highly prosperous industry providing employment for a great many people. It may be that in years to come the idea, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, of making greater use of cheaper and smaller taxis will be adopted in this country, and to that extent the motor vehicle building industry will benefit.
But I do not believe at the moment that it would be wise or right for the Government to adopt as a policy the artificial restriction of the use of private transport in any part of our country, difficult though the problems are which the indiscriminate use of that transport causes. After all, this is a free democracy and people are entitled to buy cars and to use them. All we ask is that they shall not use them to such an extent and in such a way that they inhibit and prevent the rest of our fellow citizens from making a fair use of their vehicles.
On that general explanation of the Clause, and not wishing to delay the Committee longer and with appreciaion of the hon. Gentleman for entertaining us and putting inside a rather humorous approach a germ which is of great interest to us all, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to pass the Clause.

Mr. Benn: I would draw attention to another Section of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, under which some vehicles are totally exempt—such as fire engines, vehicles kept by a local authority, ambulances and road rollers, and it may be that some reduction, or the elimination, of vehicle Excise duty for public transport vehicles may be an incentive to those vehicles to proliferate, and may be to the advantage of the motorist.
Nothing I said in any way indicated the desirability of prohibiting cars in

the middle of cities. It is a question of supply and demand. All I said was that the trouble at the moment is that people are entitled to buy cars, but cannot use them because of blockage in the cities. But I will say no more except to remind the Committee of a cartoon, which appeared in the New Yorker, showing some directors looking out of a window at a big motor manufacturing plant and saying, "It has happened at last: there is a traffic jam from the production line to the parking lot."

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE UNLICENSED DURING COMPULSORY TEST.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I understand that this is the last Clause that we are to discuss tonight as it is the last Clause in Part I, and I am sure that hon. Members will not want me to make a long speech because they, as I do, want to go home.
This is an important Clause. Its title is:
Use of motor vehicle unlicensed during compulsory test.
The Clause refers to compulsory tests, and we believe that it is almost a fictitious Clause because at the moment there is no compulsory test for road vehicles, and we wonder whether we will ever get them. I will be in order if I relate my speech to the whole question of the testing of vehicles which has been discussed before in the House.
In 1956, we debated the Bill dealing with compulsory testing of vehicles. We were delighted with the Bill and the intentions of the Government at that time. It was on Report that the then Minister of Transport, who is now the Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), said that the House would be interested to know that under the voluntary testing plan that had been established 72 per cent. of the cars tested proved to foe defective. He went on to say that it was important to get the Bill through as quickly as


possible so that cars of a certain age and of a certain vintage had this compulsory test.
We all applauded those remarks and we agreed with them at the time. I want to be fair about this. The Minister said that in his view it would take a long time to prepare the scheme, and pledged himself not to implement it until it could be done properly. We agreed with that and many of us thought that the longest time that would be allowed for implementation would be eighteen months.
It is four years since compulsory testing was first discussed in the House, but, as far as I can judge, we seem to be as far away from it now as we were then because we have had so many extraordinary and peculiar excuses. In June, 1958, the same Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Woking, said that preparations were going well, and promised to introduce a scheme before the end of 1958. Then, in November, 1958, he suddenly came out with the first legal excuse in relation to the Bill. He said that certain legal objections had been raised which could have prevented the smooth working of the scheme and that some small changes would have to be made in the proposals before they could be laid before the House.
As I understand, those legal objections were small. There was the question of fees for the retesting of vehicles that had failed the test, and a question of regulations about testing car lamps. There is no party point in this, because the Bill received the approval of the whole House and was given a Third Reading. In February, 1959, the right hon. Member for Woking came to the House and said, in effect, "I have done it. Everything is fine. Now you will get the Bill and there will be no further delay. We have, in fact, cleared all the legal difficulties." That is what he said, and we believed it. We poor simpletons believed that we would get a Bill saying that vehicles of a certain age and vintage would be compulsorily tested. Nothing happened. Five months later, in July last year, we were told that the legal difficulties had been cleared up, but that there would have to be a slight delay as the Government had found one or two other small points on which they would

have to come before Parliament. We are not quite clear what they were but, again, we were considerate and understanding in our position. We recognised—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not clear how the hon. Member is going to relate all the small points to which he is now referring to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: That I can show very easily, Sir William. These are not small points. If you look at Clause 12, you will see that it deals entirely with compulsory tests of vehicles and gives authority to examiners appointed under the Act of 1956 to which I referred. We regard the Clause as completely fictitious because the Act has never been implemented. I am trying to show that under this Clause the points I am making about the Act are quite relevant. I hope that you will allow me to go on, because matters which deal with the question of safety on the roads are very important.
If I may recapitulate, in 1959 we were told that everything was fine and we would have the scheme. To bring the story a little more up-to-date, on 31st March this year the present Minister of Transport—.this gay young Lochinvar of ours—said he would have to define the performance of brakes. This was something we had not heard of before, but he found out about it. We had told his predecessor four years ago that the question of brakes, which the present Minister now raised, ought to be considered. We said then, and I repeat now, that the standard and performance of brakes, lights, tyres and steering would have to be worked out and written into the regulations. We recognised that that would be a legal and tricky job, so we were not surprised when the present Minister said that brakes were a thing which was being looked at.
We get very annoyed at the way in which the present Minister of Transport states these things. He is unlike his predecessor. He stated outside the House that only because of legal difficulties the scheme was being held up. It was a fair speech to make. He said that the implementation of the Act was held up because of legal difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who is an expert on these matters, unlike


me, an amateur, asked a Question. The Minister of Transport replied that he did not make that speech outside, but from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mellish: I am stating facts. This gravely offended my right hon. Friend and the matter was taken up in the newspapers. There has been a protracted correspondence with the Minister of Transport. I understand that now—perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree—the Minister has admitted that the statement that he made the speech from the Dispatch Box was wrong. We, and I think hon. Members opposite, are getting a little fed up with this sort of thing, because the House of Commons is a great place and Ministers cannot treat us in this way. We do not mind a certain amount of bluff, tout there is a limit to the amount which we can take.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. What is perplexing me is how all this is properly related to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mellish: Your state of perplexity is coming to an end, Sir William, because I propose to wind up my remarks. All of us want to see the implementation of a Measure which received universal approval at the time when it was before the House. It is to make certain that every vehicle of a certain age is in good order to go on the road. We do not know how many accidents have been involved because of unfit vehicles, and I will not guess.
I have a great admiration for the ability and sincerity of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I ask him to take this matter seriously when he replies. I ask him not to confine his remarks to a narrow, obtuse argument connected with the Clause, but to reply to me and give me a simple answer to my simple question, namely, when shall we get the Bill which was promoted in 1956 and the regulations associated with it? That is all we have been asking for. If the hon. Gentleman will give us a straightforward answer to that, the debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) seems to regard it as his mission in life

to do nothing more or less than make remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The hon. Gentleman frequently makes those remarks without giving my right hon. Friend any notice that he intends to make them. That is quite contrary to the normal customs and habits of the House of Commons. It happened a week or two ago, and it has happened again tonight. I do not propose to enter into any argument with the hon. Gentleman about whether my right hon. Friend made a speech outside, what words he used, and whether he subsequently denied or did not deny making it.
I shall address my remarks, first, to what the Clause does and then I shall tell the Committee, as I think the Committee is entitled to know, what our intentions are with regard to the implementation of the vehicle testing scheme. I would very much like to go over the history of this matter, as the hon. Gentleman has attempted to do, because there are very conclusive and weighty reasons, as I discovered when I first became involved in this problem, why this scheme has been delayed so long. However, this is not the opportunity, nor is it really the time, to do that.
I will deal, first, with the Clause. Under Section 15 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, it is illegal for an unlicensed motor vehicle to be used on a public road. The Clause is essential for the implementation of the scheme for the compulsory testing of vehicles. One of the essential parts of that scheme, as I think the Committee knows, is that when vehicle testing is in operation any vehicle over ten years old which has not got a valid test certificate in force will not be licensed. It will not be possible to licence it.
When the scheme is fully in operation, therefore, the grant of a licence permitting a vehicle to be used on public roads will be subject, in the case of 10-year old vehicles, to the production of a valid test certificate, in the first place. In the Finance Act, 1958, provision was made to permit unlicensed vehicles in these circumstances to be used on the roads for the purpose of submitting them for the statutory test, but this did not take account of the fact that the test itself will in many cases require that the vehicle should be driven for a short distance on a public road.
To put it more shortly, if one has a vehicle for which one wishes to obtain a test certificate, but which is not licensed, under the existing law the vehicle can be taken to the testing station, but once there the existing law does not cover its testing on the road by the people at the testing station. Therefore, this Clause is introduced to permit an unlicensed vehicle in these circumstances to be so driven by the authorised examiner or inspector appointed under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, or a person acting on behalf of the examiner.
The Committee is entitled to know when it is likely that these provisions will come into effect. One of our problems—it is the most recent and, in many ways, the most difficult of the problems that we have had to overcome with regard to the testing scheme—has been whether or not the standards of braking performance with which a vehicle must comply under a test should be dealt with by a separate regulation or should be incorporated in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations.
We have now obtained the most authoritative advice that it is possible for the Government to obtain to the effect that these braking standards must be incorporated in the Construction and Use Regulations. Therefore, an Amendment of the Construction and Use Regulations has been drafted, and on 14th April it was circulated for comment to 88 representative organisations. This is in accordance with a statutory obligation imposed upon the Minister of Transport.
The intention is that we shall hear any objections that there are to the amended version of the regulations. We have received some. I hope that it will be possible to clear these quickly. If they can be overcome, we hope to lay amended Construction and Use Regulations and the Test Regulations in the first half of July.
The official appointment of the testing stations will then proceed during the latter part of July and during August, and vehicle tests will start in early September. An Order, and a further set of regulations will then be laid which will require that as from 1st November of this year a valid test certificate will have to be in force when the older vehicles are in use on the roads.
In view of the long and somewhat chequered history of this scheme, I must make it clear that the programme that I have just outlined makes no allowance for any possible further delays at any of these stages due to the objections that I have already mentioned or some other unexpected factor outside our control. We have had so many false starts—I admit it quite frankly—and every time something fresh has been discovered which had to be overcome before we could begin the scheme, otherwise it would have been an illegal scheme.
Therefore, in outlining, as I have, to the Committee, the projected programme for the introduction of vehicle testing, I must make the reservation that the dates I have given are subject to any unexpected delays—and I hope to goodness that there will not be many more— suddenly arising as a result of a factor we have not yet discovered. That is the basis of the Clause, and that is the timing we have in mind. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will agree to pass the Clause.

Mr. Benn: I should like to mention two points very briefly. First, under existing legislation, a car that is used on polling day does not need to be licensed. I discovered this when I used my own car in the February, 1959, election. The car was not licensed, and I was afraid that I might have invalidated the candidate I assisted, but I was told that it was not necessary for it to be licensed. I therefore understand that, on polling day, the vehicle testing scheme will not be in operation, because if a vehicle does not need to be licensed there is no need to produce a test certificate. Therefore, the risk of going to the polls in all those Conservative cars should be very considerable.
The second point came to my mind only as I heard the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, and I make it to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). We have heard tonight from the hon. Gentleman one of those comforting timetables of future progress. We have had them in the past. We have had them now for four years. The hon. Gentleman and his predecessors, I do not suggest with any desire to mislead, but with the good will of the office he now holds and the optimism that goes with it. promises that it will be only a


matter of weeks, or a matter of months.
As the hon. Gentleman has had the good courtesy to tell us that all this is subject to no further legal snags appearing, my hon. Friend has written into the record—or, to use the American expression, has "read into the record"— all the previous pledges that have been made, and we have from the hon. Gentleman the present pledge, which is as meaningless for the future as previous pledges have been in the past.
Although I do not blame the hon. Gentleman personally for it, it reveals a laxity in the Ministry of Transport that I find very hard to accept. It is no good saying that if it had been done earlier it would have been illegal. This House makes the laws, and if there are legal difficulties there are two ways of overcoming them. One is to take the best legal advice available and hope to interpret one's own laws favourably. The other is to make the law crystal-clear by amending legislation. Nothing said by the hon. Gentleman tonight has convinced me that it would not have been possible to overcome these legal difficulties earlier, if necessary, by amending the 1956 Road Traffic Act, now consolidated into legislation.
However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into this at any great length now. I will only say that although we are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented his case, we are really no nearer the introduction of the scheme than we were before the debate took place. We shall continue to press for Government action, and await with interest the first part of July to see whether the regulations he has mentioned do, in fact, materialise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Amory: I think that we have made very fair progress in our work and I am very grateful to the Committee for its co-operation. It seems to me high time that we should all adjourn for a few hours' rest.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Compton Carr: I do not apologise in any way for detaining anyone here tonight, and I only wish that I could speak for longer than I am permitted to do. However, if I may be as brief as possible on a subject so important and so well documented, and at the risk of appearing to try to teach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to suck eggs, if I may use such an inelegant phrase of so charming a Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to run through the position as it now exists as far as mentally handicapped children are concerned.
We have no longer idiots, imbeciles and the feeble-minded, but we still have an artificial division between children of one grade of mental handicap and those of another. We have the educationally subnormal, those who come under the education authority, and we have those who are described as ineducable and who come under the health authority.
Ineducable means only that these children are ineducable in normal schools. It seems to me that although we are doing a great deal for these children there are some things to which we could well pay attention. There are a number of these children. It has been estimated that there is one mentally handicapped child in every street in the country. That means that there are about 80,000 of them, of whom some 22,000 are able to take their part in the community in some way by being helped in an occupation centre. However, only two-thirds of those 22,000 are able to obtain any help at the moment. There is such a shortage of places in the occupation and training centres.
In the past we have heard about the possibility of exploiting high grade mental defectives, and sometimes one fears that they are kept for too long in residential colonies and so forth. But the fear of those who are concerned with the lower grade mental defectives, the middle grade, is not that they will be exploited but that they will be left in oblivion.


That is a fear which is expressed by many parents of such children, because places for them are still hard to find.
There are three points which I would like to mention. There is the question of teachers. We do not call them teachers, but I feel that they might very well be given that title. They are called supervisors. Despite the fact that they do not come under the Ministry of Education, I think that to call them teachers of the severely subnormal, or something of that nature, would give them greater standing. Something that would give them even greater standing would be a national training scheme.
I know that at present we have a one-year training scheme under the National Association of Mental Health, but quite often, and I say this without offence to the people who take that diploma, the only qualification needed for entering the service is that they should be between the ages of 20 and 40. As against teachers of the educationally subnormal who have done two years, or perhaps only one year's training, plus one year of educationally subnormal training, supervisors have only one year's training. This bears hardly on the children who, in many cases, really require very much more attention, perseverance, patience and cheerfulness from their teachers.
There is something much more serious which arises out of these factors, and that is the difference in salary scales between the two types. The woman teacher of E.S.N. children may reach a maximum of about £796 a year—I may be out of date, and if so, I am on the low side—but the maximum which an assistant supervisor can reach, dealing with children very often much more difficult, is £535 a year. We have to do something about that difference of about £250 per year. We still tend to rely on voluntary help in this kind of work, and we must get away from that.
As for the training of the children themselves, many authorities already do a tremendous amount but, having seen these children, I feel that we could still aim for a higher standard. Our aim is still not set high enough. The higher we force anybody, the more achievement we find possible on the part of people in respect of whom in the past we have decried the possibility of achievement. It is also necessary to be flexible. Many

authorities are flexible, but some are not. I think it is possible to do much more in this country on the lines of what is done on the Continent, where defectives are fitted into the work pattern of the neighbourhood. Local crafts are seized upon and the defectives are given instruction in them. It is not always possible here, of course, but on the Continent the Brussels lace industry is one which has taken defectives and given them some ability to succeed in outside life and obtain a pride of achievement.
There is one type of centre which the Middlesex County Council has, to all intents and purposes "invented". and that is a special care unit for exceptionally disturbed children. It has had great success with upgrading these children. Some have even filtered back under the education authority as educationally subnormal children although they had previously been given up as completely hopeless. Others, although not reaching that state, have been able to go on to a junior occupational training centre, though they were completely and grossly disturbed when they arrived at the original centre.
I should not like anyone to think that in anything I say I am decrying what has already been done. I am merely asking for more and more. I should like to see us moving far faster into research. Everyone has this problem. I have a copy of the Journal of Mental Deficiency Research for December, 1958, in which there is a paper written by a Russian who makes it clear that no one has gone any further in Russia than they have here. It is rather clumsily put, but he says:
… It is quite clear that a primary derangement of any particular link may inevitably lead to disintegration of the whole system, and that genuine analysis of the nature of derangements in this system is possible only if we disclose this primary disorder, as well as the systemic consequences which it entails.
We have a long way to go towards achieving that analysis of causation.
As we have seen by announcements in the newspapers recently, help has been given to the work at the Institute of Child Health on chemical deficiencies which themselves cause mental derangement and mental deficiency, and mental deficiency which can be cured, if taken


early enough, by correcting the chemical inbalance in the children.
There is also the exciting work being done on chromosomes as far as mongolism is concerned. This is only something to discover the sources of the disease. I am proud to say that I have a brother who is working in the University of Western Ontario on this very problem, and I know that the work is going on all over the world and that everyone is extremely excited about it.
There is also the work, which was reported by Dr. Tizard in the British Medical Journal of 2nd April, on residential care of mentally-handicapped children, again showing that there are new factors which can be taken up and new successes which are still available.
The most exciting thing, which is still a frontier to be crossed, is the work on causes and treatment of so-called autistic —sometimes called schizoid, sometimes psychotic—children, which is almost unknown territory. These children are apparently schizoids who live in a dream world. They seem intelligent, but it is impossible to touch them even with treatment that is nowadays giving success in 75 per cent. of normal adult schizoids. We must pay attention to that factor.
I would like to say that I have a testimonial to what I have said, that there is no lack of good will but lack of space, lack of ability to do things more quickly. This letter is from a parent who wrote to me and said his six-year-old daughter was awaiting final diagnosis in the Maudsley, but she could not get in because of the long waiting list. It said:
It is certainly not lack of understanding or will that we have encountered, but of material facilities.
I close in the hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something in reply which will give added force to the moving words in a leaflet sent by the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children to parents:
You have friends; you are not alone.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I want to intervene for a minute to support almost everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) on this ex-

tremely important subject, which we discuss all too seldom in this House. It is part of a wider field in which I have been interested for a long time, and, in particular, I would like to support his plea for more research.
It seems to me that, without pitching one's hopes too high, there are signs of a real break-through if we can throw in all the resources that we have in this country, particularly so far as mongolism and the new chemical processes being investigated at Great Ormond Street, at the Institute of Child Health, are concerned. I also support the hon. Gentleman's plea for better conditions and better salaries for supervisors, who constitute one of the worst-treated categories in mental health service where salaries generally are far too low.

11.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) on choosing for his Adjournment debate something which is of tremendous human interest and which commands the sympathy of us all. I hope to show that considerable progress is being made in providing better training in better premises for mentally handicapped children.
The children we are discussing are those who are unsuitable for education at school, as we now refer to them. Formerly, they were described as "ineducable". There is a wide-ranging provision for the educationally subnormal child within the education system, but when a child is found to be unable to benefit from this provision, he becomes the responsibility of health departments of local authorities and thus of the Ministry of Health.
My hon. Friend has asked for further progress and higher standards, and has referred to the care of mentally-handicapped children both in training centres for the mentally subnormal run by the local health authorities and in hospitals. I want, first, to say a few words about the training centres, because I gather that that is the subject to which my hon. Friend attaches major importance. Local health authorities have a duty under the Mental Deficiency Acts to provide suitable training or occupation for the mentally handicapped child living in the community.


Local health authorities have been required to submit proposals showing how they intend to carry out those services following the amendments made by the Mental Health Act, 1959. Nearly all those proposals have been received and will be approved at the end of the statutory two months' period of objections.
In recent years, local health authorities have been making great efforts to provide more places for mentally handicapped children. In 1948, there were about 100 centres altering for about 4,000 children. At the end of 1959, there were 293 whole-time centres catering for juniors or mixed age groups and 51 part-time centres, that is, a total of 344 catering for 10,500 children, so there has been an appreciable increase. In 1953, 65 per cent. of all children known to be suitable for training were received in training centres and in 1959 the figure had gone up to 80 per cent. In the financial year 1960-61, local health authorities have submitted 68 schemes for training centres for juniors or juniors and adults mixed.
A year ago, my right hon. and learned Friend asked all local health authorities to review their mental health services in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Health. In a paragraph on priorities, a circular suggested that authorities should keep in the forefront the need for adequate provision for training children up to the age of 16. It was also suggested that the authorities should consider the desirability of providing residential accommodation in hostels for children who could not reasonably be transported to a training centre every day.
We think that the provision of such hostels will go a long way to provide places for 2,600 children who at the moment are not receiving training. Many of those children live at distances from the centres which make it extremely difficult and against the interests of the child to convey the child every day to and from the centre. The children will be able to stay in the hostels either for the whole term, or from Monday to Friday, returning home at the week-end.
In addition to the provision of hostels for these children, local health authorities are progressively replacing unsatisfactory rented premises by new buildings. They are also turning part-time centres into

full-time centres and bringing into the ambit of the centres those children who previously had only been visited by a home teacher perhaps for a short period every week.
My hon. Friend asked me about the teaching staff in the training centres. We are very much aware that problems are likely to arise as a result of this rapid expansion which I have already mentioned and the expansion in the provision for the mentally handicapped over the age of 16 who require a somewhat different type of training. Earlier this year, the Standing Mental Health Advisory Committee set up a sub-committee on the training of staff of training centres for the mentally subnormal. That subcommittee is now receiving evidence and has issued a questionnaire to local health authorities and hospitals.
We hope that the results of that committee's deliberations will help us provide more and better staffs for training centres. As my hon. Friend said, at present the only accepted training course is a course run by the National Association of Mental Health, which lasts only one year, and there is no requirement, even on the staff of centres, to take that course, although we believe that many of them have done so. The staffs of the centres are, of course, paid on scales agreed by the local authorities' National Joint Council, so that pay is a matter for the local authorities. I am hoping that when the report of the sub-committee is available local authorities will be prepared to consider it again.
I want to say a special word about grossly handicapped children. As my hon. Friend has particularly referred to Middlesex, I would say that what is going on there is going on in other areas, because a number of authorities are developing what are called special care units. They are intended to cater for children of very low intelligence and those who are physically as well as mentally handicapped, or are so emotionally disturbed that they cannot be dealt with in the ordinary small classes of the training centre. Specially adapted rooms and toilet facilities are provided adjoining the centre, and there is a higher staffing ratio. Middlesex has three of these units, and has been doing some excellent work in caring for these very unfortunate children.
In addition, they have admitted to these units some children who are probably not severely subnormal, but who are so disturbed and handicapped in addition that they may appear to be of very low intelligence. With a great deal of intensive care they have had some success with these children. We are watching these experiments closely, and we hope that local health authorities everywhere will gradually be able to increase their provision for children of this type.
Turning to the hospital service, education and training is one of the main objects of mental deficiency hospitals. The aim is to develop to the greatest possible extent all the capabilities of the patients, so as to enable them to live the fullest life they can and to make them as useful citizens as possible. This is true of all patients in these hospitals, and not merely of children. The number of children in mental deficiency hospitals at any one time is comparatively small. The Royal Commission found that at 31st December, 1954, just under 7,000 patients in these hospitals were under the age of 15; that is, 12 per cent. of the total. But a substantial number of each year's admissions are of young people.
Training may take various forms. Education in the formal sense is not generally appropriate, but there are a few patients who need 3R work—for example, adolescents and adults who have failed to learn at the usual time, for various reasons, but who can make progress in the security of a hospital. Education of this sort is provided in many hospitals for such patients as can benefit from it. It is clearly desirable that a patient who may return to the community should be able to read a little, even if it is only the names of the destinations of buses. The nature of the occupation or training prescribed for an individual patient must depend on his needs and capabilities, and also on the facilities of the hospital.
Work in the wards and in hospital utility departments—laundry, sewing, room, kitchen—is of considerable value, and can give useful occupation to a large number of patients. Hospitals also offer a wide range of specialised activities in workshops of various sorts,

occupational therapy departments, gardens, and so on. In some cases the patients obtain a high degree of skill and produce useful and beautiful work, but it is obvious that there are many who could not undertake the more advanced activities of this kind.
Training and education does not merely cover this kind of activity, but extends to the whole of the patients' lives in hospital—to recreation and to all their relationships with other patients and with the staff. The patient has to be helped, so far as his abilities allow, to live with his handicap in a community, and this process affects all aspects of his life in hospital. Not all hospitals provide services up to the standard we would like to see. There is a serious shortage of accommodation, and apart from this many hospitals do not have the facilities they would like for providing training and occupation.
It is perhaps worth citing as an example a hospital which provides a very wide range of occupation and training. In the unit for women there is a school for children, run by a headmistress and three assistants. For the severely subnormal children there are occupational therapy classes where a very wide range of skills is taught. At the unit for men a wide range of skills are taught and many of the workshops are supervised by skilled tradesmen instructors. There is also a school for those who can benefit from it. A similarly wide range of activities, though at a lower level of achievement, is provided at the unit for low-grade men. In addition, there is a training hostel for high-grade adolescent girls, a hostel which provides training in domestic science, and a school for boys aged nine to 16.
I quote this to show what can be done. The importance of providing such facilities for those patients who can benefit from them is being increasingly clearly recognised. Many improvements have been made through recent new building and upgrading of existing building, and further developments will take place.
My hon. Friend referred to Dr. Tizard's unit for mentally defective children at the Fountain Hospital. This is a very small unit with a high staffing ratio, which was started with the idea that mentally defective children would


benefit from living in something approximating as nearly as possible to a family atmosphere. Their mode of life would be similar to that of normal young children at the same stage of mental development. The unit is run on much the same lines as a small residential nursery and has achieved very satisfactory results.
This was probably to be expected, for doctors generally would agree that the possibility of individual attention conferred by a high staffing ratio can achieve much for patients of this type. But inevitable limitations on capital programmes, and the difficulties experienced in recruiting staff, means that schemes of this sort, however good the results achieved, can at present have only a limited application.
My hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) both referred to research into this question. A good deal is being done in this field, particularly on the genetic basis of mongolism and in the biochemistry of the body and its relation to subnormality of the mind. The National Health Service is playing its full part in this work.
We would not wish to interfere with the freedom of universities to develop research in their own way and money is available in the usual way through the universities, the foundations, and the Mental Health Research Fund for studies

of this kind. The Medical Research Council is also carrying out studies in genetics and on the psychological and educational problems of the severely subnormal. I hope that I have shown that we are most conscious of this problem. Considerable progress has been made in providing training centres or adequate hospital facilities, but there is much more to be done, we know, and we intend to go on doing it.
I have always had the greatest admiration for the parents of these children, particularly the mothers. They do a wonderful job in the care that they give the children and the love—it seems to me the extra love—which they lavish on a child which is so unfortunate. The general community has a debt to parents who carry this responsibility, and, in turn, the community should help in providing services which will give relief to the parents concerned. Indeed, the community should provide the services at such an early stage that we may hope that these children will play their part in normal life, limited though it may be, and be prevented from coming under the necessity of going into hospital.
For that reason, I am particularly glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss this matter tonight, no matter how late the hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.